KRISHI UPAZ MANDI SAMTI MADHOPUR Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is civil first appeal filed by the appellant-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 11/5/1992 passed by District Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Civil Suit No.8/1982 whereby plaintiff's suit was partly decreed and a sum of Rs.38,992.05 was awarded with interest in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

(2.) THE controversy involved in the present matter is that plaintiff's tender was accepted by the defendants and he was allocated the work of construction of road and during this construction work, the plaintiff had to spend money under several other works on account of the latches on the part of the defendants, which were necessary for completion of the road work and therefore a civil suit came to be filed by the plaintiff claiming Rs.86,550.20 from the defendants whereas according to the defendants they are not liable to pay any amount for the other works done by the plaintiff which were not specified in the contract and it was his duty to maintain and look after the work and complete the same in time. It was also pleaded that plaintiff has not completed the work in time, therefore he was not entitled to get the refund of security money.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. So far payment of security deposit of Rs.17,700/- is concerned, it was retained and not paid by the defendants on the count that plaintiff has not completed the work in accordance to the contract but it is not disputed that defendants stopped the plaintiff for further construction and directed him to take the payment of the work done by him. A letter Ex.2 dated 24/7/1976 in this regard was also written by defendant Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to the plaintiff. Lateron the defendants asked to the plaintiff to start and complete the work but they failed to provide him road roller and also did not inform to the plaintiff about their inability in providing the road roller, though charges for the same were got deposited from the plaintiff. Therefore, keeping in view this fact situation trial court has committed no wrong in recording the finding that it was latches on the part of the defendants that work could not be completed in accordance to the contract. In view of the above, I do not find any perversity in awarding the decree of the security amount of Rs.17,700/-.