The Court upheld the validity of the construction agreement and affirmed the plaintiffs' entitlement to the claimed amount, emphasizing the importance of establishing the terms and obligations of the agreement in construction disputes.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment, dated 30.11.2021 made in O.S.No.76 of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli.)

1. The appellant herein is the defendant. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 2014, before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli for recovery of money. Initially, the first plaintiff filed a suit and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sister concern, therefore, they are impleaded as plaintiffs 2 & 3 in the suit.

2. The trial Court after trial, partly decreed the suit that the plaintiffs are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,66,977.22/- together with interest from the defendant at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization of the amount with proportionate cost. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant has filed this appeal.

3. Brief plaint averments are as follows:-

The plaintiffs are the reputed organisation providing services such as Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Management in and around the locality. The defendant is a well known doctor and providing medical services and consultancy through his hospital namely Sri Sakthi Hospital at Tirunelveli. In the course of their business, during the year 2010, the defendant approached the plaintiffs and offered a project to them to construct a European Style Hospital with 100 bed facility for him at Survey No.988/1A2 and 989/2A2B in Kulavanigarpuram Village. After negotiations, the plaintiffs agreed to undertake the said project and on 05.05.2010 an agreement was entered by them with necessary terms and conditions. The cost of construction for the finished building with other civil works, namely, false ceiling, electrification, sanitary arrangements and Centralised Air Condition with estimate at Rs.3,60,00,000/-. All the facts and figures in this regard were placed before the defendant and his wife Dr.Sumathi and they also agreed for the same. The concept and the design of the said building was finalized and the copy of the design was also furnished to the defendant through his mail. The plaintiffs have started construction work on 04.06.2010 after receiving advance from the defendant. He and his wife were fully satisfied with the design furnished by the plaintiff and the project is under way. Further, it was agreed between them and the defendant that the cost towards the works done by the plaintiffs shall be disbursed by the defendant periodically on the invoice raised by the plaintiffs. But, immediately after the commencement of the project, the defendant did not act as agreed and no payments were made periodically. When the plaintiffs approached the defendant for payment, he informed that he was unable to release the funds, since the loan process is under way. Since the defendant has not releasing the cost of the construction payable to them periodically, the plaintiffs approached the defendant for payment, he has dragged the same at the guise of non-sanction of bank loan and the plaintiffs have varied all the ordeals caused by the defendant and his personnel bonafidely and continued the construction activities with the fond hope that the defendant will release the funds. Since, the defendant has not turned to make any payments towards the dues payable to the plaintiffs, on 07.04.2011 they have stopped the construction activities in and over the premises for the reason that non-payment of the funds payable to them. The defendant had also requested the plaintiffs to furnish yet another estimate for the cost of construction towards the said project, so as to enable him to obtain the loan from the bank. As per his request, the plaintiffs furnished revised estimate for the same. While the facts remain so, during the month of February 2013, again the construction activities were started by the plaintiffs, since the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the dues p