Prakash Gupta, J.

Instant Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23rd January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent for recovery of money.

2. In the aforesaid suit, it is mentioned that the defendant approached the plaintiff for structural work of a multi storied building on his plot bearing No. S-54 B, Arvind Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur for which both the parties agreed on the terms and conditions of the agreement. A contract was executed between the parties on 1st May, 2012.

3. As per the contract, the plaintiff was to construct a structure on the first, second, third and partially on the fourth floor with RCC columns, beams and roof and the said work was to be completed by 31st August, 2012 i.e. within four months from the date of the agreement. In the plaint, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had neither given maps of the building to be constructed within the time nor proper cooperation was extended by him, despite that the plaintiff had completed the work within time and submitted his final bill on 18th February, 2013 for Rs. 2,76,168/- which was not paid. It is further alleged in the plaint that the goods of the plaintiff, like construction machinery and other articles of shuttering amounting to Rs. 82,500/- are also lying at the site in respect of which too, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree. It was, thus, prayed in the plaint that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed for Rs. 2,76,168/- and Rs. 82,500/- respectively.

4. The defendant-appellant resisted the suit by filing written statement contending therein that the plaintiff had violated the terms and conditions of the above mentioned contract as the construction was not up to the mark. Also, the plaintiff did not complete the construction work within the stipulated time. As per the contract agreement, the work had to be completed by August, 2012 but owing to the lapse on the part of the plaintiff, the same could not be completed till February, 2013. It was also contended that the defendant had taken a loan from SBBJ and due to late completion of construction work, he had to suffer heavy losses. Regarding the letter dated 14th August, 2012, it was mentioned that the same was the result of a concocted story as the plaintiff was not able to complete the work within the stipulated time. In the Bill dated 18th February, 2013 the plaintiff included fabricated estimate of 5th floor which was neither mentioned in the contract nor any such construction was ever raised. It was then averred that excess amount has already been paid to the plaintiff. Regarding the construction machinery, it was averred that the defendant was neither responsible for the security of the construction machinery which the plaintiff had brought at the site nor any machinery was lying thereat. Thus, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost.

The plaintiff, in rejoinder, denied the facts mentioned in the written statement.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-

^^1- vk;k oknh] izfroknh ls fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dh cdk;k jkf'k 2]76]168@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ --------oknh

2- vk;k oknh fuekZ.k ds dk;Z dk lkeku e'khu] 'kVfjax] feDlj] okbZczsVj vkfn lkeku of.kZr vuqlwph&d okn i= izfroknh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS vFkok fodYi esa lkeku u nsus dh fLFkfr esa lkeku dh dher isVs 82]500@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ----oknh

3- vk;k oknh us vuqcU/k dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djds vuqcU/k dh 'krksZa dh vogsyuk dh gS] bl dkj.k oknh] izfroknh ls dksbZ jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS \ ----izfroknh

4- vk;k izfroknh us fuekZ.k ds fy, ekufp= vuqcU/k ds vuqlkj le; ij ugha fn;s ftl dkj.k fuekZ.k dk;Z esa