ZILA PARISHAD AMBALA Vs. BANARSI DASS KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts. The plaintiff, being an approved contractor, submitted a tender on May 3, 1954, in respect of the work for the mattering and tarring of Jagadhri Bilaspur road miles 6 to 8/2260 and for the supply of burnt bricks, stone-metal etc. to the District Board ambala, which has now been substituted by the Zila Parishad Ambala. The District board (hereinafter called 'the Board') accepted the tender and communicated the necessary sanction to the plaintiff vide its letter dated June 14, 1954. In terms of the agreement between the parties, the plaintiff was required to give security for due performance of the contract. He did so by opening a Savings Fund Account in respect of Rs. 7033/- in the Ambala City Post Office on 4/5 August, 1954, and pledged this amount with the Board. The Chairman of the Board was given authority to withdraw any amount from the said Savings Fund Account on the happening of certain events which showed that the plaintiff had failed to perform his part of the contract as stipulated in the agreement deed. The plaintiff claims to have with the terms of the agreement inter parties. He was made full and final payment of the bills submitted by him to the Board without any objection. After the completion of the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to receive the amount of security deposit which he had pledged in favour of the Board. When he made a demand in this behalf, he was informed that this amount had been adjusted towards compensation which had been imposed against the plaintiff as detailed below:--

(2.) AS the defendant-Board refused to refund this amount the parties referred this matter to the Superintending Engineer, Ambala. as the sole Arbitrator. The arbitrator held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute about the imposition of Rs. 6076. 00 as the compensation claimed against the plaintiff for the alleged delay in completing the work undertaken for the supply of material. Regarding the second item of Rs. 957/ -. the Arbitrator gave his award directing the defendant-Board to refund a sum of Rs. 947/-to the plaintiff after deducting rs. 10/- only as the valid compensation. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of subordinate Judge First Class, Jagadhri, claming a sum of Rs. 706/ -. The attack levelled against the withholding of Rs. 6076/-as compensation levied for the alleged delay in connection levied for the alleged delay in connection with the supplies of materials was based, inter alia, on the following reasons :-

(3.) THE defendant-Board filed a written statement in which it was alleged that the plaintiff was to supply stone-metal and burnt bricks on the road by January 5, 1955. This date was extended by one month and ten days but the plaintiff failed to complete the job even within the expelled time. He finished the supply only on march 28, 1955. The screenings were insufficient. The plaintiff supplied only 2204cft. as against the contracted quantity of 4404cft. The material was largely mixed with earth and contained only one half of screening. It was further alleged that the time was the essence of the contract and the plaintiff rendered himself liable for compensation because he failed to perform his part of the contract within the time fixed and the compensation had been levied properly. The learned trial court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:-