Sawant, J. - These five appeals arise out of the decision of the trial court by which the trial court has disposed of five suits and five objection petitions. Respondent No.1 in all the appeals is a contracting firm (hereinafter referred to as the firm). In First Appeal No.21 of 1987 and First Appeal No.25 of 1987 the firm is M/s. Ajit Mehta and Associates while in the rest of the appeals it is Ajit Construction Company. There are three partners in M/s. Ajit Mehta and Associates who are also the partners in M/s. Ajit Construction Company which has four partners. First Appeal No.21 of 1987 is concerned with the contract for the construction of what is known as Married Accommodation at Jamnagar; First Appeal No.22 of 1987 is concerned with the contract of the construction of buildings at Dhrangadhra in Gujarat State; First Appeal No.23 of 1987 is again concerned with the construction of the married accommodation at Dhrangadhra; First Appeal No.24 of 1987 is concerned with the construction of hospital Building at Jamnagar whereas First Appeal No.25 of 1987 is concerned with another contract of construction of the Married Accommodation at Jamnagar. The tenders in all these contracts except in the contract in Appeal No.22, of 1987 were invited and accepted by the Chief Engineer, Jaipur at Jaipur whereas the tender in contract involved in Appeal No.22 of 1987 was invited and accepted by Commander Works Engineer, Baroda at Baroda. Thursday, the 10th August, 1989.

2. The contract in First Appeal No.21 of 1987 was of 1979-80 and the work was completed within the extended period in February, 1983. The final bill was submitted by the firm on March 26, 1983 and the firm was paid the amount due under the final bill on April 27, 1983. The firm made a request for release of the bank guarantee on April 28, 1983 and the bank guarantee was released on May 13, 1983. The contract in First Appeal No.22 of 1987 was of 1977-78 and the work was completed within the extended period by May 15, 1982. The final bill was submitted by the firm on July 16, 1982. The bill was not paid and the bank guarantee was also not released because there was an amount due from the firm under another contract and as per condition 67 of the Contract between the parties, the Appellant was entitled to withhold the said amount. In First Appeal No.23 of 1987, the contract was of 1977-78 and the work was completed on February 26, 1981 within the extended period. The final bill was submitted by the firm on March 31, 1981 and it was paid on April 24, 1981. However the bank guarantee was not released as there were certain dues owed by the firm to the Appellant under another contract. In First Appeal No.24 of 1987 the contract was in 1978-79 and the work was completed within the extended period by October 15, 1982. The firm submitted its final bill on March 26, 1983. It was however paid on March 31, 1984 because the firm had not surrendered the excess stores lying with it till that date. The bank guarantee was released on May 18, 1984. In First Appeal No.25 of 1987 the dates and facts are more or less identical with these in First Appeal No.21 of 1987. The final bill was submitted by the firm by the end of March, 1983 and it was paid on April 27, 1983. The bank guarantee was released on May 13, 1983.

3. In all these cases the final bill was submitted by the firm without any conditions or reservations. The firm had also given no claim certificate. Further, where the bill was paid (which was in all cases except one i.e., in First Appeal No.22 of 1987), the firm had passed unconditional receipt and in full and final settlement of its claim. However it raised disputes with regard to the bills subsequently and made further claims. As regards the contract in First Appeal No.21 of 1987, although the final bill was submitted by the firm in March 26, 1983 and the unconditional receipt for its payment was given by it in April, 1983, it raised dispute about it for the first time in