A. Lekshmikutty, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 38 of 1989 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode filed this appeal against the judgment and decree in the said suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money and for rendition of accounts.

2. The appellant was a PWD Contractor for a long time. He was awarded the work of Muchukunnu-Thikkodi Beach Road by the second respondent accepting the appellant's tender. An agreement was executed on 22.1.1985. He was directed to make a security deposit of Rs. One lakh, much in exercise of what is usually insisted upon. The site was handed over to the appellant on 13.2.1985 and it had to be completed by 17.2.1986 as per the agreement. The appellant started the work very earnestly and diligently. unfortunately, there were various objections and impediments in proceeding with the work. The handing over of the said work was a myth and in fact the department had not obtained possession from the respective owners for the property through which the road had to be constructed. The original road had only a width of 4 metres and it has to be widened to 8 metres. Some portions of the proposed road belonged to the Food Corporation of India and Railways. No consent was obtained from them also. One Kelappan and Moidu had filed injunction suits restraining the department from proceeding with the construction work. Temporary injunctions were granted in the said suit. There were physical obstruction

from the side of the landlords. Objections regarding the work were also filed before the Honourable Minister for PWD by one Balakrishnan. Further, many coconut trees had to be cut and removed for widening the road. In the suit filed by Kelappan, the department had to file an appeal from the order of injunction before the Sub Court, Badagara. The second respondent did not do any thing to remove the obstructions. When the appellant started the work, the landlords objected the same. When the actual work was commenced, the quantity required for filling, exceeded far from the estimated quantity. As per the agreement, 23 masonry culverts were to be constructed, but at the time of the work, they were converted into 3 pipe culverts and 25 box culverts. The department had no stock of pipes, cement and steel necessary for this work. Apart from this, a lot of extra items such as cutting and removing of trees, baling of water, dismantling and removing old masonries, fresh use of vibrated concrete etc. had to be done. There was undue delay for payment of part bills and payment for extra items were not paid at all. The department was really responsible for causing the delay in executing the work. As directed by the respondents, the appellant applied for extension of time and huge amounts were due from them up to 30.3.1987. An amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was due to the appellant. Still the appellant continued the work facing difficulties and about Rs. 10 lakhs fell due to him from the department allegedly for want of funds. Repeated requests were made by the appellant. At last, the Assistant Engineer, Quilandy by his letter dated 6.8.1988 issued a notice threatening that the agreement would be cancelled. Thereafter, the appellant was forced to issue notice under S.80 of the CPC and filed the suit.

3. The respondents filed written statement contending that the appellant stopped and abandoned the work after 40% of its execution and did not resume the same inspite of repeated instructions. There was no obstruction as alleged by the appellant. The site was handed over to the appellant on 13.2.1985. He had started the work only after 4 months. There was no complaint from any corner. Voluntary surrender was made by the land owners and agreement was for widening the existing road. The security amount deposited by the appellant is not in excess. During the time of executing the agreement, security deposit fixed by the Government was 5% of the PAC or Rs. One lakh which ever is less. The site was actually hand