The completion time as the essence of the contract and the discharge of financial liabilities by specific payment mentioned in the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

2. Judgment and decree passed by Subordinate Judge-VI, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 116 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed, is under challenge in the first appeal. Cross-Objection No. 04/2006 has been preferred for a decree of Rs. 2,59,30,764.00 with interest at the rate of 21% per annum.

3. Plaintiff is the land owner and the suit was filed for cancellation/termination of the development agreement dated 11.2.1999 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Plaintiff claimed the contract to have been discharged by way of breach on the part of the defendant who had failed to construct the building within the stipulated time and thereby violated the terms of the agreement. In view of the breach, the Defendant was entitled to get only the construction cost with respect to part construction done.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

4. Plaintiff got the plan sanctioned for construction of a multi-storeyed commercial-cum- residential building and started construction. Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant was converted into a Development agreement entered on 11.02.1999 between both parties with respect to the plot of land fully detailed in the Schedule comprising an area of 05 Kathas. As per term of agreement, it was for a period of 18 months i.e. up to 12th August, 2000 and the work was to be executed as per building plan duly sanctioned in B.C. Case No. 865 of 1996.

5. The work could not be executed by the defendant during the stipulated period of 18 months and there was deviation and consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit for breach of contract and for compensation/ damages @ Rs. 1000/- per day commencing from 12th August, 2000. Further breach was that defendant blocked fire escape passage. The work was not completed within stipulated time and the project itself was abandoned leaving plaintiff in lurch. Defendant encroached other land by constructing a concrete roof generator room. Extra room on the ground floor was constructed which resulted in reduction of the open space in the lobby area. All the shops shown to be in the share of the developer on the ground floor was connected and converted into a hall with toilet inside the hall which was not as per the sanctioned plan.

6. Exterior portion of the building as well as the interior of the bathroom was not completed. The sump had not been constructed, notified fire-fighting system which had neither been purchased nor was installed. The overhead tank for supply of water to the would-be occupants and electrical connections inside the building was also improper and incomplete.

7. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:

(a) A decree for declaration that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of the said agreement which was discharged by way of a breach of the terms and conditions.

(b) Defendant was only entitled to the cost of the part construction done by him during the subsistence of the said agreement.

DEFENDANT’S CASE

8. As per the case of the defendant, there was no breach on the part of defendant, rather the delay in execution of the project was due to expiry of the sanctioned plan midway and the same was not renewed by the Plaintiff. The building map which was sanctioned for three years expired on 13.02.2000 and was not revalidated. Defendant was precluded from executing the work.

9. Further plea is that as per Clause III of the agreement, the plaintiff was obligated to execute the power of attorney in favour of defendant which was not done. Consequently, Defendant could not take any step for revalidation of the map.

10. Breach of undertaking on the part of the Plaintiff to execute and give separate power of attorney, to enable him to mobilize fund by disposing the deconstructed area for share or by transferring the flats after its completion, created hindr