JOSEPH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, THRISSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who had his suit decreed by the Trial Court but which was reversed by the lower Appellate Court whereby the suit was dismissed is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiff tendered for the work 'Protecting the left bank of Manali River on the upstream of N.H. Bridge at Manali' and his bid was accepted. The probable amount of contract was fixed at Rs. 1,74,802/ -. The agreement was entered into on 28/12/1990 and the work was to be completed within two years of handing over of the site. According to the plaintiff, he commenced the work, but soon labour problems crept in and added to this was the vagaries of nature and the change of course of the river. Even though the plaintiff brought the above aspects to the notice of the first defendant, the first defendant paid little heed. According to the plaintiff, due to the change of the course of the river, it was impossible to complete the work. However, he was later served with Ext. A2 notice calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 2,90,927/ - towards damages. That was challenged by the plaintiff in OP 23465 of 1998. While the original petition was pending, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. Therefore the original petition was disposed of directing the plaintiff to seek such remedies as are available under the Revenue Recovery Act. Though the plaintiff objected to the conduct of the defendants, they continued with the proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff filed WA 465 of 1999 which was disposed of by judgment dated 24/02/1999 directing the plaintiff that if he is so aggrieved, he may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. Pointing out that there is no reason to call upon him to pay the amount mentioned as above, he sought for injunction against enforcement of Ext. A2 notice.

(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit. They pointed out that the suit is not maintainable. It is contended that the plaintiff did not commence the work. He had committed breach of contract and therefore the contract was terminated. The contract is clear in its terms that the problems that may arise are the worry of the contractor and the defendants had nothing to do with the matter. They pointed out that as a result of the breach of the contract committed by the plaintiff, the Department had suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 2,90,927/ - which under the terms of contract the plaintiff is bound to make good. The writ petition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and there is no reason to grant any relief to the plaintiff. They prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

(3.) ON an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that in spite of best efforts made by the defendants, they were not able to substantiate the quantum of damages and that they have no power to recover the same. Accordingly the suit was decreed.