1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 17-11-2008 in O.S. No. 1 of 2005 passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa district. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as the plaintiff and the defendants.

3. The plaintiff is a civil contractor. He entered into an agreement with the 1st defendant on 01-01-1996 in relation to the work of formation of Neelapuram distributory, Gudipadu distributory and Gollapalli distributory branching from Chennamukkapally regulator. It was stipulated in the agreement that the work should be completed by 30-6-1996. The work order was issued by the 2nd defendant on 31-01-1996.

The plaintiff undertook the work in Neelapuram distributory up to a length of one kilometre in the Government land. The work of the other distributories was not taken up due to non-availability of the site.

It is the version of the plaintiff that on the belief that the entire site would be provided by the defendants within a reasonable time, he mobilised men and machinery to commence the work. He could not complete the work within the stipulated time as the defendants failed to provide the site without any obstruction and there was obstruction from the persons in possession of the assigned lands through which the work has to be carried on. There was lot of correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendants in this regard. The plaintiff executed the work to some extent in the allotted site and the defendants released the bill for an amount of Rs.10,87,398/-. The defendants recovered an amount of Rs.1,76,963/- towards the value of the cement. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit before the trial Court praying for the following reliefs:

(a) directing the defendants to pay plaintiff the suit amount of Rs.22,94,499/- together with subsequent interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.15,24,584/- from the date of the suit till payment.

(b) directing the defendants to pay plaintiff costs of the suit, and

(c) granting such other and further reliefs as may appear just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

4. Before the trial Court, it was contended by the defendants in their written statement as follows:

(a) The plaintiff started the work knowing the consequences about the assurances of the department to the assigned land owners. Clause 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Standard Specifications enables the contractors to withdraw if the work is delayed for more than two months. But the plaintiff, who knew fully well about the difficulties in allotting the land and who was fully aware of the nature of the contract, did not withdraw from the work despite having recourse to Clause 58 of the A.P. Standard Specifications. The fact that the land owners have obstructed the plaintiff is denied by the defendants. The plaintiff did not complete the work in the Government land also within the stipulated period. He completed the work to a tune of Rs.9,85,679/- only by July, 1996. The time of the contract was extended up to 30-9-1996 on the request of the plaintiff. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was forfeited as the plaintiff failed to maintain the progress of the work. Without even executing the work in the Government land which was allotted to him within the stipulated time, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages on the ground that the defendants committed breach of contract. The plaintiff lifted his camp and withdrew all his labour, he did not sustain any loss. The plaintiff was paid an amount of Rs.15,041/- after recovering the cost of the cement and taxes, but the plaintiff has not returned the unused cement. However, the defendants submitted that they are ready to make payment for return of the unused cement.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for ?

(2) To what relief ?

6. On