JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are before this Court assailing the judgment dated 05.08.2015 passed in O.S.No.92/2013. Along with the appeal, an application in I.A.No.3/2016 is filed seeking to bring on record the additional documents sought to be produced by the appellants. The said application is considered along with the appeal in the course of this judgment.

2. The brief facts are that, the respondent herein who had undertaken construction work for the benefit of the appellants had filed the suit for recovery of Rs.19,62,370/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The case of the plaintiff was that, the construction work was entrusted to the plaintiff as per the Work Order No.36/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007. The construction work so entrusted was taken up and after completion of the work, the final bill for the amount of Rs.27,89,435/- was submitted. The plaintiff received the amount of Rs.12,06,301/- as part payment and since, the balance amount of Rs.15,83,134/- had not been paid, the suit was filed seeking recovery of the same, since the legal notice dated 27.12.2011 also did no yield any positive results in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The defendants namely, the appellants herein though represented, did not choose to file the written statement. The Court below, in that light had framed the following points for consideration:

[1] Whether the plaintiff proves that he has completed the construction work entrusted to him by the defendants as per the schedule as alleged in the plaint?

[2] Whether plaintiff further proves that the defendants are liable to pay the suit claim amount as alleged in the plaint?

[3] Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% p.a., from 15/07/2009 to 30/05/2013?

[4] Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief?

[5] What Order or Decree?

4. The plaintiff had examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon the documents at ExP-1 to ExP-10. The defendants namely, the appellants herein did not choose to adduce any evidence. It is in that background, the Court below, while answering the points raised for consideration has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff having undertaken the work is entitled to the payment of Rs.9,83,134/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The defendants have filed the instant appeal assailing the said judgment.

5. As already taken note, the appellants have also filed I.A.No.3/2016 under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the outset, we have taken note of the reasons as indicated in the application and having taken into consideration the documents produced thereto since, they are in fact the admitted documents even as per the case of the plaintiff, the same are taken on record. From the additional documents, the document No.2 is the contract bearing No.36/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007 which in fact has been relied upon by the plaintiff in the suit. In that background, an examination of the consideration as made by the Court below is required to be taken note.

6. The Court below, while taking into consideration the evidence has also taken note of the contract entered into between the parties bearing No.36/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007. In that light, having referred to the documents at ExsP-1 and P-2 namely, the work order and the bill that had been submitted by the plaintiff, has arrived at the conclusion that the entire claim as put forth has not been paid. In that light, what is relevant to be taken note keeping in view the nature of contention put forth on behalf of the appellants is with regard to the additional work said to have been undertaken by the plaintiff, which according to the appellants herein was unauthorized and therefore, to that extent, the payment had not been made.

7. To examine this aspect, the Court below had relied upon the document at Ex-P-10 which was the reply notice that had been issued by the respondent. In that regard, what we also notice is that, even though there was no written statement