R. P. DHOLARIA, J.

The appellant original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has preferred present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned Judge) in Civil Suit No.4194 of 1985, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The facts in nutshell are as under:

2.1 The plaintiff is a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The respondent herein original defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) invited tenders for the work of manufacturing and supplying of bricks of standard size. After scrutiny, the tender of the plaintiff was accepted and consequently work order came to be issued in favour of the plaintiff on 29th June, 1981. The work entrusted was required to be completed on or before 31st December, 1981. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was required to quote price for one crore bricks with basic rate of coal and labour and the defendant was expected to provide land for manufacturing of bricks for a maximum period of five years. The possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff on 10th December, 1981. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff got the possession of the land after about six months during which time the price of the materials, labour charges, etc. was increased. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff also paid Rs.90,000/- as security deposit for the performance of the contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had accepted only one crore bricks and the rest of the bricks manufactured were lying at the site and even the price of 1 crore bricks as agreed was not paid to the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the contract was for a period of five years and therefore he spent huge amount to develop the land. The plaintiff had thus claimed Rs.32,82,518/- under different heads along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the notice.

3. As against this, it is the case of the defendant that the contract was limited for manufacturing of one crore bricks only and no promises or assurance was given to the plaintiff that after receiving one crore bricks, the work of manufacturing of more bricks would be awarded to the plaintiff. It is also denied that the period of contract work was five years. It is also contended that the period consumed for cleaning the land cannot be given set off since the entire land of 22 acres was not required by the plaintiff for the purpose of manufacturing the bricks. It is also denied that no bricks were lying at the site and payment as agreed of one crore bricks was not made.

4. The learned Judge raised following points for determination at Exh.37.

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the contract between the parties was for the period of five years?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has committed breach of contract?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.32,82,518.80 ps. as claimed or any amount from the defendant?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

5) What order and decree? P

5. The learned Judge has recorded the findings as under:

Å“1) In the negative

2) In the negative

3) In the negative

4) In the negative

5) As per final order.

6. We have heard Shri Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Ravani, learned advocate for the respondent.

7. We have also perused the record and proceedings as well as judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

8. Shri Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant plaintiff has drawn our attention to the oral as well as documentary evidence on the record so as to argue that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in dismissing the suit. He has further argued that the plaintiff is the societ