STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. RANJON MAJUMDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal 34 of 2003 where -under the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Agartala, in Title Suit No. 97 of 2002 was upheld.

(2.) THE second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:

(3.) THE respondent as plaintiff (hereinafter mentioned as plaintiff) instituted Title Suit No. 97 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala, against the appellants (hereinafter mentioned as defendants) seeking declaration and consequential relief alleging that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants for execution of a construction of three storied building at Pandit Nehru Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala and the agreement was signed on 19.02.2000. As per agreement, the plaintiff was supposed to start the work from 15th day of signing the agreement and the stipulated period of completion of work was 12 months. The total estimated value of the work was Rs. 26,84,750/ - and the accepted value of the tender was Rs. 28,99,530/ -. It is the case of the plaintiff that though he was supposed to start the execution of the work in time but he could not take up the work within the time schedule because of delay in supplying the design, drawing and government material etc. as well as for the execution of extra work valued Rs. 3,55,938/ - and as a result, 130 days delay was caused in the process and the total delay was 190 days. The plaintiff approached in writing to the defendants for extension of time and the work was completed on 25.08.2001 and the defendants took over the constructed building on 27.08.2001. After the entire process was complete, to the surprise of the plaintiff, he received a notice dated 03.10.2001 issued by the defendant No. 2 to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for the delayed execution of the work and thereafter a penalty of Rs. 13,424/ - was imposed by issuing Memo dated 20.10.2001 alleging that 174 days delay was caused in the process of execution of the work by the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the Notice dated 03.10.2001 by filing the suit.