STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. A A PATHAN BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal field by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1987 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 1984 by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D), Ahmedabad (Rural). The respondent (original plaintiff) filed a suit against the State of Gujarat seeking a decree to recover the amount of Rs. 15,01,411/- together with costs and interest. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 7,76,411/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation. In the aforesaid appeal the State is the appellant in relation to the decretal amount while in First Appeal No. 108 of 1988 the respondent-plaintiff has come up in appeal seeking to enhance the decretal amount by a total sum of Rs. 7,25,000/-.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Godhra (B&C) Division invited tenders from the public for the work of constructing approach to overbridge at level crossing No. 45 on Dahod-Zalod-Banswada road. The plaintiff respondent filled up the tender amounting to Rs. 54,13,295.25 ps. as against estimated cost of Rs. 37,80,723/-. The tender submitted by the plaintiff-respondent being the lowest was accepted and a regular agreement was entered into in B-2 Form bearing agreement No. B.2/65 of 1979-80. The plaintiff- respondent was issued a work order on 15.3.1980 and the work was required to be completed within a period of 30 months from the said date as per terms of the agreement i.e. on or before 15th September, 1982.

(3.) The basic case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the contract in question created certain mutual bilateral and reciprocal contractual obligations which are required to be performed by both the sides to the contract and that the department having failed to perform its reciprocal part of the contractual obligations, a fundamental breach of the contract was committed preventing the plaintiff-respondent from fully or partly completing the work in question. The say of the plaintiff- respondent was that the department could not supply the site land in view of the injunction granted by the Court from 4.7.1980.