JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This is plaintiff's first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit No.01B/2014, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.54,92,129/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred on legal notice, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of civil suit are that respondents-defendants' company issued a work order No.PIL/SKJ/A/1207/01//66 on 12.07.2010 for the work of design, manufacture, supply, laying, jointing and testing of 150 MM MS and 400 and 500 MM BWSC pipes and the amount of work order is Rs.2,23,96,200/-, which was accepted by the appellant/plaintiff and by mutual consent, amendments were carried out in the said work order on 19.07.2010, 09.08.2010, 25.01.2011, 01.02.2011 and 09.02.2011 to the effect that the work is to be completed by 20th November in place of 30th September, as per amendment in the work order. It was pleaded that an additional condition was inserted in the work order for supply of extra pipe, according to which, the amount was enhanced to Rs.2,40,81,610/- in place of Rs.2,23,36,200/- and ultimately on 09.02.2011, the amount was fixed at Rs.2,40,81,610/-.

3. It was also put forth by the appellant – plaintiff that plaintiff started his work as per work order and from 17.09.2010 to 25.08.2012, plaintiff submitted bill amounting to Rs.2,44,74,499/- (as per Annexure-A) against the work before the respondents/defendants, to which, there was no objection from their side and accordingly, interim payments were made to the appellant-plaintiff. It was also the case of appellantplaintiff that on 08.01.2011, 14.01.2011, 15.07.2011 and 01.12.2011 respectively, total six work orders were issued in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, in which, time to time amendments were carried out and as per amended work order, further 13 bills (Annexures B and C) amounting to Rs.4,51,95,135/- were raised by the appellant-plaintiff strictly in accordance with the contractual terms and rates as enumerated in the work order. The plaintiff was also submitting bills regularly along with work progress report to the defendants-respondents and in the month of May, 2012, the appellant-plaintiff completed 90% work, out of the six work orders. Although the respondents-defendants' company made 75 part payments of different amounts against the bills (Annexures- A, B & C) submitted by the appellant from 09.01.2010 to 04.05.2012, amounting to Rs.3,97,03,006/- as per statement Annexure-D, but withheld the amount of Rs.54,92,129/- against the six work orders, which amount is due and payable to the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff made several requests reminding the respondent-defendants to pay the balance amount, but the respondents-defendants chosen not to reply. Thereafter, appellant-plaintiff sent two legal notices through registered mode on 21.06.2013 & 26.06.2013 to repay the balance amount, despite that vide letter dated 13.07.2013, the respondents-defendants refused to repay the balance amount of Rs.54,92,129/-. Therefore, the appellant-plaintiff has been constrained to file the civil suit for recovery of balance amount i.e. Rs.54,92,129/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred on legal notice.

4. Respondents-defendants No. 1 & 2 resisted the suit by filing written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. It was specifically pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff did not complete the work within the time limit as prescribed in the work order. It was also pleaded that the respondents-defendants' company, due to excessive delay caused by the plaintiff, sustained loss and that the plaintiff company has taken this action out of bad faith instead of completing the work order and the standard of w