STATE OF BIHAR Vs. KAILASH PD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Bihar and he authorities have filed this First Appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.1978 and the decree signed on 7.12.1978 by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur in Money Suit Nos. 59 of 1976/7 of 1978 decreeing the plaintiff/respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 11,409/- with interest at the rate of 0 per cent per annum.

(2.) The plaintiffs/respondents filed the aforesaid Money Suit claiming the reliefs for recovery of Rs. 11,409/- on the ground that he was a contractor and his tender being the lowest tender for constructing the Kumbha-Bajpatti Road was accepted by the appellant. Prior to the execution of agreement, the plaintiff visited the spot and found that there was a bridge after a distance of one mile and the said bridge was not fit for crossing the heavy vehicles. According to the plaintiff, he was to construct 11/2 kms. road but because of the bridge, it was not possible for him to construct road beyond the said bridge unless the bridge is repaired so that heavy vehicles could pass over it. The matter was discussed with the appellants and then a conditional agreement was executed and the appellants assured that the department would reconstruct/repair the bridge before the plaintiff would require the use of the bridge. The plaintiff was required for constructing the road up to bridge within June, 1974.

(3.) The further case of the plaintiff is that the bridge, in question, was never either reconstructed or repaired by the appellants as a result of which the plaintiff could not complete the work beyond the bridge. He completed the work of metalling the road up to the bridge only. Therefore, the department closed his work and final bill was passed on 29.8.1975 and payment for metalling the road up to the bridge was made to the plaintiff. It is, further pleaded that the defendant/appellant did not return the earnest money of Rs. 7,962/- deposited by the plaintiff/contractor nor paid the security money deducted from his own account bill on the ground that Accountant General objected to it. According to the plaintiff, it was not because of fault on the part of the plaintiff but because of fault on the part of the defendants/appellants the work beyond the bridge could not be completed and, therefore, the defendants/appellants are liable to return the said amount. Notice u/s 80 CPC was served and then when the defendants did not care even to reply, the plaintiff filed the suit.