PRAFULCHANDRA G PATEL Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dtd. 30/8/2000 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Bharuch (for the sake of brevity and convenience, hereinafter referred to as "the Learned Civil Court "), in Civil Suit No.175 of 1992, whereby the suit instituted by the appellant seeking recovery of damages/dues amounting to Rs.27,89,319.06 (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs Eighty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen and Paise Six only) along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the defendants came to be dismissed, the appellant has preferred the present First Appeal.

(2.) The appellant, a civil contractor, entered into Contract Agreement No. B-2/72 of 1984-85 with the defendant department (Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, District Panchayat, Bharuch) for constructing a new M.I. Tank at Village Valli, Taluka Jhagadia, District Bharuch, at the sanctioned tender amount of Rs.26,57,345.91 (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Five and Paise Ninety-One only) against the estimated cost of Rs.33,33,190.00(Rupees Thirty-Three Lakhs Thirty-Three Thousand One Hundred Ninety only). The work order was issued on 7/6/1984, with a stipulated completion period between 7/6/1984 and 6/6/1986. Alleging breaches, delays, non-supply of drawings/designs, change of specifications, and failure of reciprocal contractual obligations on the part of the defendant department, the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming an aggregate sum of Rs.27,89,319.00 (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs Eighty- Nine Thousand Three Hundred Nineteen only) under seventeen (17) distinct heads, enumerated as under: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_2_LAWS(GJH)9_2026_1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) The defendant department filed its Written Statement at (Exh.-13) denying all allegations, contending inter alia that the suit is not tenable at law and barred by limitation, that designs were supplied along with the work order, that the plaintiff committed default by failing to complete the contract work within the stipulated/extended time limit, and that the materials were prematurely removed from the site before completion.