MODI, J.—These two appeals are directed against the two separate judgments and decrees of the District Judge, Kotah, dated 31-5-69. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, they are being disposed of together.

2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted two suits in the Court of the District Judge, Kotah, suit No. 22 of 1963 on 16-11-63 and suit No. 8 of 1964 on 31-1-64.

3. The facts relating to suit No. 22 of 1963 are as follows.

4. The Executive Engineer, Right Main Canal, Division I, Chambal Project, Kotah, invited tenders for constructing a drainage syphon at RD 87000 on Right Main Canal. The plaintiff submitted his tender at 9.5 per cent above the estimated amount mentioned in G Schedule attached to the tender form. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan, accepted the plaintiffs tender on 18-5-56 and an agreement was executed between the parties which was signed by the plaintiff on the one hand and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, on the other. Before the tender was formally accepted by the Chief Engineer, the plaintiff was asked to commence work and he actually commenced it on 20-4-56. The work was completed on 15-7-58. The plaintiff was paid for the work done by him as per rates mentioned in the tender and accepted by the Chief Engineer. He however claimed that as during the course of the progress of the work the quantities of various items of work were increased and certain additional new items of work were added, he was entitled to 40 percent above the schedule of rates of the Chambal Project. This claim of the plaintiff was rejected by the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 30-11-61. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 7804/- being the difference between the tender-rates and the rates 40 per cent above the tender or schedule of rates on the following increased and additional quantities of items of work carried out by him :

(1) Earth work including lifts of the value of Rs. 3228/-

(2) Concrete work of the value of Rs. 2481/-

(3) Masonry work of the value of Rs. 11779/-

(4) Pointing work of the value of Rs. 633/-

(5) Plaster work of the value of Rs. 62/-

(6) Kharanja work of the value of Rs. 1326/-

Total Rs. 19509/-

He claimed this amount of Rs. 7804/- on various grounds. These grounds are mentioned in paras Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint which run as under :

"3. During the course of the progress of the work the scope of work was altered so as to make major changes in the work. The number of syphon pipes was increased, their thickness was increased, steel content of pipes and RCC was increased and all round quantities of different items of work were also increased. Certain all together new items of work like kharanja, curtain wall, wing wall, etc. were added for which tenders had not been invited. As a consequence of these changes, the cost of the work increased from the tender amount of Rs. 1,10,882/- to Rs. 1,47,796/-.

4. When the plaintiff was informed about the increased quantities and later on about new items of work to be done and was asked by the Assistant Engineer vide his letter dated 21-11-56 to quote his rates, the plaintiff replied on 22.11.56 that he would execute the increased quantities at 40 per cent above the schedule of rates. The rates so quoted by the plaintiff were neither objected nor rejected forthright. The plaintiff was rather asked to proceed with the work. The defendant in this way tacitly accepted the rate quoted by the plaintiff The Engineers gave verbal assurances to the plaintiff that he will be paid according to the rate quoted by him.

5. That the rate quoted by him was even otherwise fair and reasonable in the changed circumstances. Due to increased quantities and new items of work, the completion date was extended and the work was prolonged over a much longer period. The cost of labour and material in the meantime rose considerably higher and the Chambal Project authorities too revised the old schedule of rates during this interval. The ne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document