JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad on 16.12.1995 in Special Civil Suit No.16 of 1989, the defendant has preferred this Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. For brevity and convenience the parties are referred to herein as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The defendant has contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that non-carrying out of work of Pump house amounts to breach of contract committed by the department. It is stated that even without the Pump house, the plaintiff could have carried out the other items in the contract in the absence of pump house. It is also contended that the plaintiff had not completed the work of fish Farm for which the site was provided within the stipulated time. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the work of rolling and watering was to be carried out by the department. It is further contended that as per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was to carry out the work of wa