HARIBHAI & BROTHERS Vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT First Appeal, under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred by the appellant herein original plaintiff challenging the impugned judgement and decree passed by the learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3296 of 1990, by which the learned Judge has dismissed the said suit instituted by the plaintiff.

(2.) THAT the original plaintiff, who is a building contractor, was awarded a contract to construct 192 tenements for lower income group at Sola Group -2, Division -3 at Ahmedabad by the original defendant Gujarat Housing Board. That acceptance letter dated 4/1/1979 (Ex.24) was issued to the plaintiff accepting the said contract and the Work Order was issued to the plaintiff on 26/2/1979 (Ex.25). That according to the work order, the work was required to be completed by the plaintiff within 12 months from 1/3/1979, however, the plaintiff completed the work on 31/3/1985 and the final bill was paid to the plaintiff on 24/12/1987. That thereafter, after a period of approximately 3 years i.e. on 3/7/1990, the plaintiff instituted the suit praying for a decree for an amount of Rs.34,26,000/ - being Rs.60,00,000/ - by way of increase in the rate for work of construction and Rs.18,24,000/ - by way of interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from March, 1984 till filing of the suit. That the defendant filed Written Statement at Ex.18 submitting that in the contract / work order, there was no clause for price escalation and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree for any amount by way of increase in the rate for the work of construction. That the learned trial court framed the issues. The parties led the evidence documentary as well as oral. The plaintiff produced the following documentary evidences : -

(3.) PRESENT appeal is opposed by Ms.Renu Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.Y.N. Ravani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent original defendant. It is submitted that on appreciation of evidence and more particularly when admittedly in tender agreement and work order there was no clause for price escalation and when the plaintiff had specifically admitted that the delay incompletion of the work and/or even price rise cannot be attributed to the defendant, the learned judge has rightly dismissed the suit. It is submitted that the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned trial court dismissing the suit is on appreciation of evidence, documentary as well as oral which is not required to be interfered with by this Court.