M.S. SONAK, J.

1. In both these appeals the challenge is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2011 in Civil Suit No.72/2005 made by the learned District Judge-3, North Goa, at Panaji (Trial Court), which Civil Suit was instituted by P.B. Ibrahim (plaintiff) against the State of Goa and others (defendants) seeking inter alia the several reliefs including for recovery of several amounts from the defendants. The dispute between the parties arises out of contract for “Improvement of riding quality (under IRQP 2001-02) from kilometer 84/00 to 131/00 (except km 90/00 to km 100/00 and km 105/00 to 116/00) of NH-4A in Goa” awarded by the defendants to the plaintiffs in pursuance of plaintiff being adjudged as first lowest tenderer.

2. First Appeal No.60 of 2011 has been instituted by the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the rejection of most of the reliefs prayed for by him. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to only partly decree the suit and award the plaintiff an amount of Rs.1,97,070/- with 10% interest from 2.7.2002 till the date of its actual payment by the defendants to the plaintiff.

3. First Appeal No.33 of 2017 is instituted by the defendants, aggrieved by the award of aforesaid amount of Rs.1,97,070/- with 10% interest to the plaintiff. These are therefore the cross appeals against the same judgment and decree and consequently, it is only appropriate that both these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment and order. The learned counsel for the parties also agree that it would be appropriate if both these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment and order.

4. Mr. Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff submits that in the contract entered into between the parties, the time was not the essence and the learned Trial Court clearly erred in holding so. In any case, Mr. Sardessai submits that the contract clearly stipulates that the period for completion of work was 150 days excluding monsoon. He submits that the learned Trial Court completely ignored the fact that the period of monsoon had to be excluded in the present case. He submits that it was the case of the defendants themselves that there were provisions for extension of time as also levy of compensation in case of delay. He submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the true import of the rulings of the Apex Court in M/s. Hind Construction Contractors Vs State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 70. Mr. Sardessai submits that the impugned judgment and decree to the extent it answers the issue of time being of the essence against the plaintiff, is vitiated by both the error on facts as well as law and therefore warrants interference.

5. Mr. Sardessai submits that in the present case there is absolutely no dispute and in any case, there is overwhelming evidence that the plaintiff completed the entire works within 150 days i.e. by 2.7.2002, except item no.7, which comprises the work of center line painting. Mr. Sardessai submits that the plaintiff vide letter dated 1st July, 2002 informed the defendants that the monsoon has commenced and therefore, it may not be advisable to undertake this work during the monsoon. Mr. Sardessai however points out that by the said letter, the plaintiff agreed to execute the said work in case the defendants so insist. Mr. Sardessai points out that even the site for center line painting was not made available to the plaintiff because Bharati Telesonic Ltd. was permitted to lay the optical fibre cable at the same time. Mr. Sardessai submits that this crucial aspects have not at all been considered by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree.

6. Mr. Sardessai submits that as compared to the scope of the entire works awarded to the plaintiff, which in the monetary terms came to a little more than Rs.4 crores, the item no.7 in relation to the center line painting was valued at Rs.1,04,000/-. Mr. Sardessai submits that a