STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GANGJI RAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the First Appeal No.526 of 1987 filed by the original defendant-State and the cross appeal being First Appeal No.570 of 1988 filed by the original plaintiff-claimant challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-12-1986 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (C.D.), Bhuj at Kachchh, in Special Civil Suit No.80 of 1983 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was partly allowed entitling the plaintiff to recover Rs.5,89,074=30 with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the defendant.

(2.) As there are identical facts involving common question of law on the basis of which impugned judgment and decree has been challenged, I propose to decide these First Appeals by this common judgment.

(3.) The facts of the plaintiff in brief are that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for construction of Mathal Dam under Mathal Irrigation Scheme in pursuance of acceptance of tender submitted by the plaintiff. However, as the stone of quarry situated 3 km. away from the site was found to be unfit, plaintiff was asked to use the stone of Village Maru, Taluka Nakhatrana situated 19 kms. away from the site as it was found to be fit and it was told that needful would be done in the final bill. The plaintiff therefore requested that extra expenses incurred would have to be paid by the defendant. The Officers of the defendant assured that after the work was over, extra amount would be paid to the plaintiff. However, when the final bill was prepared by the plaintiff upon completion of the work, Officers of the defendant were not passing the final bill. Since the claim amount was not being paid, the plaintiff filed the present suit after serving a notice under Sec.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was resisted by the defendant vide written statement at Ex.12 contending inter alia that no map or any document has been produced by the plaintiff to show that the Maru quarry is situated at 19 km. away from the site. It was further contended that the plaintiff did not raise any objection against the terms and conditions mentioned in the acceptance order and since the demands are not in accordance with the condition of the tender, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any extra expenses. The learned Judge, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit against the defendant. Hence, the present appeal by the original defendant.