1. The defendant is the appellant.

2. The suit is by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., Kottayam for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,005.36 by way of damages for breach of contract by the defendant. The plaintiff Corporation had invited tenders to carry out the work of the construction of a road from Peruvannamuzhi to Perambra Estate of the plaintiff Corporation at an estimated cost of Rs. 3,25,614.00. The defendant's tender was the lowest for Rs. 2,83,174.00. As per Ext. A3 dated 28-5-1970 the plaintiff accepted the tender and a formal agreement Ext. Al dated 24-6-1970 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Ext Al requires the contractor to commence the work as soon as the agreement is executed, and the site handed ever to him. and requires the work to be completed before February 1971. Clause.11 of the terms and conditions of the tender notification annexed to the agreement requires the work to be completed in 9 months from the date of order to start work, and in any case not later than the end of February, 1971. Clause.22 provides for penalties for the delay in the execution and completion of the work and Clause.23 provides for extension of time by the Chief Construction Engineer of the plaintiff-Corporation, if alterations of designs etc. are found necessary. Ext. A5 dt.1-7-1970 is the order issued by the plaintiff to commence the work at the earliest. The agreement is ambiguous in regard to the time within which the work is to be completed. The plaintiff-corporation had been complaining about the tardy progress of the work, and Exhibits A7 to A9, A17, and A20 to A23 are its letters in that behalf.

3. As per Ext. A19 letter dated 25-1-1971. the plaintiff had required the defendant to resume the work before 2-2-1971, on failure of which the defendant was told, the contract would be cancelled, and the remaining portion of the work carried through some other agency at the risk of the defendant. Ext. A20 letter dated 5-2-1971 required the defendant to speed up the work failing which he was sold penal action under the agreement would be taken. Ext. A2I dated 1-3-1971 requires certain specified items of work to be carried out before 6-3-1971, on failure of which also, the defendant was told penal action under the agreement would be taken. As per Ext. A22 letter dated 5-3-1971 the defendant was informed that the time for completion of the work is over and unless immediate action is taken to speed up the work it will not be possible to complete the masonry work and metalling before May 1971.

4. However on 17-3-1971 the plaintiff issued Ext. A24 notice terminating the agreement for the failure of the defendant to complete the work before the end of February 1971. This notice Ext. A24 states that time for completion of the work expired on 28-2-1971, that the defendant had done only the earthwork for laying the road and had also made a few culverts as against the number of culverts and two bridges yet to be made and the metalling of the road yet remaining to be done in terms of the contract.

5. Para.14 of the plaint is extracted below:

"Since the defendant failed to complete the work, the plaintiff Corporation arranged to get the work completed otherwise. By getting the work so completed, the loss to the plaintiff-Corporation is Rs. 56,473.00 which the defendant is liable to compensate to the plaintiff Corporation. After appropriating Rs. 32,467.64 consisting of:

1. Rs. 12,703.64 towards amount due to the defendant as per uptodate Bill

2. Rs. 7,914.00 retention in previous Bill

3. Rs. 11,350.00 security deposit and

4. Rs. 500.00 permanent earnest money deposit the balance amount due from the defendant towards the loss sustained by the plaintiff Corporation is Rs. 24,005.36".

The principal defence to the suit is that it is on the failure of the plaintiff to hand over possession of the site on which the road is to b3 made that the defendant could not complete the work within the time mentioned in Ext. Al. Accordin