STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KAPA BABU RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal and the revision petition arise out of an award dated 69-1993 passed by the arbitrator and confirmed by the Principal subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by his common judgment and decree dated 4-11-1994. CRP No. 1786 of 1995 arises out of the judgment and decree in OP No. 305 of 1993 on the file of the Principal subordinate Judge, Vijayawada making the award dated 6-9-1993 as 'rule of the Court'. CMA No. 707 of 1995 is filed against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-petitioner.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the revision and the appeal are as set out hereunder: the respondent has entered into an agreement No. 59 of 1987-88 dated 27-7-1987 for execution of widening and strengthening the carriage from KM. 0. 00 to KM. 1. 20 of jaggayyapeta-Muktyala Road. The time for completion of the work is nine months from the date of handing over of the site. The site was handed over on 26-8-1987 and the work is to be completed by 25-5-1988 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

(3.) THE respondent-contractor signed the agreement on 27-7-1987 and it is the contention of the appellant that time is the essence of the contract as envisaged in clause (4) of the agreement. The period of execution of the work is nine months from the date of handing over the site. The site was handed over on 26-8-1987 and the work has to be completed before 25-5-1998. The respondent-contractor has executed 15. 32% of work as on 4-12-1987, stopped the work and sought for extension of time upto 30-9-1988 by his letter dated 13-51988. By a letter dated 20-6-1988 time was extended upto 30-9-1988. Since the respondent-contractor failed to complete the work within the extended period the contract was unilaterally terminated on 37-101988. The respondent-contractor by his letter dated 30-11-1988 has demanded compensation for the loss caused and claimed a sum of rs. 1. 72 lakhs. By a letter dated 19-12-1988 the Executive Engineer rejected the claim.