SYED GAFOOR S/O. SYED HAYATH, CLASS I-P.W.D. CONTRACTOR Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 21st August 2006, passed in O.S. No. 26/2005, by the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), at Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short), only in so far as it relates to not awarding interest at 18% on Rs. 10,68,272/ -, from the date of suit till the date of payment, has presented this first appeal.

(2.) THE Appellant herein was the Plaintiff and Respondents were the Defendants before the Trial Court and they would be hereinafter referred as to their rank, before this Court.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the tender submitted by the Appellant was accepted and the contract work was entrusted to him. Accordingly, the Appellant and the fifth Respondent signed the agreement and issued the Commencement Certificate and thereafter the Appellant and sixth Respondent took up the work as per the terms and conditions of the contract and carried out the same under the supervision of sixth Respondent. The measurement of work was also taken out and bills were also prepared on time. The Appellant completed the work within the stipulated time as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and completed his work as per Ex.P11 dated 8th February 2002. During the period of contract, some payments were made in respect of some bills for the work carried out by the Appellant. Subsequently, after completion of the entire work, the Appellant submitted his bills for payment, of balance amount with interest. When the balance amount was not paid, he made several oral requests. In spite of his requests and sincere efforts, he could not receive the balance amount for the work carried out by him. Therefore, he was constrained to issue legal notice though his counsel, seeking recovery of the said amount with interest, stating that if the balance amount with interest is not paid, he would be forced to initiate legal proceedings against the Respondents. In spite of it, when he did not receive any amount from the Respondents, he was constrained to file a suit for recovery of money.