In a suit for damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove breach of contract by the defendant in order to recover damages.

ORDER:- This application under R. 36 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi Hills has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22-2-1983 passed by the District Judge-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, Meghalaya, in Money Appeal No. 16(T) of 1979 dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya and affirming the judgment and decree dated 16-8-1979 passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Money Suit No. 35 (T) of 1978 with a minor modification of the decreetal amount.

2. It is settled law as decided by the Full Bench of this court that though it is a revision, this court had the power to consider the evidence adduced by the parties (See 1969 Assam LR 92).

3. The brief facts are as follows:

One J.N. Giri who is the contractor under the P.W.D. and Agriculture Department, Govt. of Meghayala filed this suit for realisation of Rs. 6,2107.47 p. The facts are that in response to a tender notice issued for construction of Irrigation Head work, at Tyrso Valley, East Khasi Hills the petitioner submitted tender and the tender and the rate of the plaintiff was accepted by the defendants. Thereafter the work order was issued on 14-3-1975 and necessary agreement was executed between the parties. According to tender notice, the estimated value of the work was Rs. 6,46,359.22. The plaintiff started the work on and from 15-3-1975 as per instruction of the Sectional Officer. The plaintiff completed the preliminary works such as removal of trees, bamboo camps, removal and blasting of floating and embedded boulders from river bed and did work for an amount of Rs. 3,99,627.20 within March, 1976. A payment Rs. 3,24,379.89 was made by the defendants accepting the measurement submitted by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that no regular measurement book was maintained by the defendants and the defendants used to rely on the measurement duly recorded by the plaintiff and payments were made accordingly. Thereafter on 13-3-1976 the modified plan was submitted reducing the length of the Dam from 74 meters to 51 meters and the plaintiff had to proceed with the work on the basis of modified plan and as per verbal instruction given from time to time, though at that time the plaintiff already completed the preliminary work as per original plan. It is the claim of the plaintiff that during the period from April, 1976 to March, 31st, 1977, the plaintiff did the volume of work of Rs. 4,96,253.12 out of which he received an amount of Rupees 1,20,000.00 on 26-3-1977 and another Rs. 1,171,840.00 being the value of the cement. The total being Rs. 2,04,413.12. Up to 31-3-1977 the outstanding was Rupees 2,04,413.12. Rs. 75,247.31 being the previous year outstanding amount. After April, 1977, the plaintiff did further work on the site the value of which as per his own measurement comes to Rs. 1,60,477.35 out of which Rs. 22,000/- is to be deducted being the value of the cement and the balance due to him is Rs. 1,38,477.35. In addition to it, the plaintiff also claimed the following amount :

(a) Rs. 15,939.00 - for Cement carriage.

(b) Rs. 24,150.00 - being the charge of excess recovery for cement cost.

(c) Rs. 95,000.00 - Losses suffered by to plaintiff on account of delay caused by the defendants.

Thus, in all the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 5,53,226.78. The plaintiff also claimed interest @ 12 1/2% for illegal detention of money. The plaintiff claimed that he did work in all for a value of Rs. 11,91,447.67 and demanded the defendants to complete the measurement. The plaintiff also submitted his own measurement to the defendants, but the defendants did not complete the measurement. The plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the notice was duly served on the defendants. As the payment was not made, so this suit has been filed.

4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. Their defences are as follows :-

(i) The tot