PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant before the learned Single Judge. We shall be referring to the parties by their nomenclature in the suit.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts for the purposes of adjudication of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.66,72,626/-(Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Six only) together with interest @ 15% per annum on the original side of this Court against the defendant : Delhi Jal Board.

3. Concise, case of the plaintiff was:-

a) On May 10, 2006, the plaintiff a sole proprietorship concern was awarded work of ‘providing and laying 800 mm diameter rising main/feeder main from Vikas Marg to Vishwakarma Park (Geeta Colony), UGR & BPS in Trans Yamuna Area’ vide order No.1/2006-2007 by the defendant.

b) As per the contract entered into between the parties, the stipulated date of start of work was May 22, 2006 and work was to be completed within a period of six months from date of start of work i.e. on or before November 21, 2006.

c) The plaintiff made all necessary arrangements for start of work on the stipulated date but could not timely start the work on account of failure of defendant to fulfill its obligations under the contract viz. (i) providing full and hindrance free site for execution of work; (ii) issuance of drawings/details for the works; (iii) providing lay out for execution of work; (iv) obtaining necessary permissions from local authorities; (v) making timely payments for execution of work; and (vi) inspection and approval of material/pipes etc. before procurement and use.

d) The plaintiff could not start the execution of the work on time because of failure of the defendant in taking necessary road cutting permission(s) from local authorities such as MCD, PWD, DDA etc. before start of work. The defendant acknowledge in its letter dated August 24, 2006 that road cutting permission from MCD, PWD is likely to be obtained by August 30, 2006 and thus no work could be undertaken at the site before September 01, 2006. (We note that major emphasis was placed by the plaintiff on the fact that defendant did not timely take road cutting permission from the local authorities).

e) The defendant did not approve the drawings of valves submitted by agency M/s PAVCO Engineering in time, particularly those of sluices valves, which delayed the completion of work.

f) Despite its best efforts the plaintiff could not complete the execution of the work on time due to hindrances encountered by it at the site; such as faulty underground electricity/MTNL cables, damaged and leaking old water sewerages etc.

g) The plaintiff submitted the drawings for approval on July 03, 2006 but the same were approved by the defendant only on October 19, 2006 which majorly delayed the completion of work.

h) The contract required the plaintiff to procure pipes/MS Plates from SAIL however SAIL did not have requisite materials in its stock which constrained the plaintiff to procure pipes/MS Plates from local market. Further, the pipes/valves etc. procured by plaintiff were not timely inspected by third party M/s MEACON. The non-availability of requisite material(s) with SAIL and delay of testing of pipes/valves by third party majorly contributed to the delay in completion of work.

i) On various occasions, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant to the effect that plaintiff cannot be blamed for delay in completion of work and the delay is entirely attributable to the defendant.

j) Despite the fact that delay occasioned in completion of work was entirely attributable to the defendant, the defendant illegally levied penalty for delay in completion of work calculated @ 9% of contract value upon the plaintiff in terms of clause 2 of contract. Additionally, the defendant illegally rescinded the contr