IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for damages due to insufficient evidence and the contractor's failure to complete the work as per the contract.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RAO, J.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 05.11.2003, in O.S. No.91 of 1995 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein is the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,16,101/- towards the loss and damages caused to them.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.91 of 1995, are as under:

The first plaintiff’s husband by name Dega Sundararami Reddy, who is the contractor entered into agreement with the government for execution of the contract works i.e., construction of HLB across Challakalava at KM 18/6 of G.D. Road to Siddavaram (via) Kota (Balance work) covered by agreement No.99/86-87 dated 28.02.1987. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the contract work in question has to be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of handing over of the site. The department handed over the site on 05.03.1987 and it is also obligatory on the part of the defendants to discharge their part of the contractual obligations as agreed upon. The contractor, soon after entering into the contract, taken all the steps with an intention to complete the contract work in the stipulated time. The defendants have committed the breach of contract by not supplying the requisite information and required cement in time and further the department has wrongly prepared the estimation and consequently there were lot of deviations so far as items covered by earth work was concerned. On account of these variations, revised estimation was required to be obtained from the higher authorities and the same could not be obtained from the higher authorities till 30.06.1992, which is the date of illegal termination of the contract.

5. The fourth defendant filed a written statement, which is adopted by the defendants 1 to 3, while denying the averments mentioned in the plaint, admitted with regard to the entrustment of the work to the contractor at his own request at the rates of original contractor and further contended as under:-

One V.P.Kannaswamy was the original contractor. As he failed to complete the work, the department has withdrawn the part of the balance work from him and entrusted to the present contractor for the following works.

1. Laying of T-Beam slabs for P2-P3, P3-P4 and P4-P5 (3 slabs)

2. Balance work on abutment A2.

3. Balance work on approaches including metalling.

The revised estimation was approved on 05.10.1990 vide memo No.6382/ECE/D1/DEE.III/ACE.3/85, dated 05.10.1990 and on that the department has also granted further extension of time up to 31.03.1991 and the 3rd defendant has also gave clearance and came to proceed with the work. As per the revised estimates regarding the formation of approaches and carted, the contractor carted the earth work to a quantity of 13784.5 cum meters in addition to the said earth quantity of 1184 cubic meters by February, 1990 and a part payment was also made for that work and he failed to make further arrangements to carry out the further earth work inspite of time extended from time to time. But the contractor, with a plea that the authorities have not approved the revised estimate, has stopped the work even though the department has given clearance in advance to proceed with required carted earthwork to complete the approaches to the bridge. He made all baseless charges against the department. The department has incurred an additional expenditure of Rs.2,19,000/- and with a further loss of 2 years time to complete the work after determining his work under clause 61 to prescribed specifications to A.P.Standard Specifications and inspite of the notice, the contractor could not resume the work and inspite of th