JUDGMENT :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2014 made in O.S.No.7248 of 2010 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

The defendant in O.S.No.7248 of 2010 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, Civil City Court in Chennai is the appellant before this Court by way of First Appeal. The appellant challenges the judgment and decree in the above said O.S.No.7248 of 2010 dated 10.07.2014.

2. Brief summary of the plaint:

The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the defendant being an undertaking of the Tamil Nadu Government called for tenders for construction of 150 houses (Group A) for Beedi workers at Melapalayam Village, Thirunelveli District on a lumpsum contract basis. The plaintiff's tender dated 10.11.1999 was accepted by the defendant and a work order was issued on 14.01.2000. Consequently, an agreement was also entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant vide TNRHC Agreement No.3/2000-2001 dated 25.08.2000. The value of the work agreed upon was to the tune of Rs.46,19,997/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant handed over the site to the plaintiff in March 2000 and that the period of completion was five months from the said date of handing over. The plaintiff further contended that in anticipation of completion of the work within the stipulated time, the plaintiff had mobilised men and material. However, according to the plaintiff even when the work site was handed over to him in March 2000, the entire area was covered with heavy jungle and wild vegetation which had to be cleared only by use of machinery. It is the further case of the plaintiff that when the work was in progress, he received a letter dated 14.09.2000 from the defendant, asking the plaintiff to go slow in execution of the work, since the defendant was not able to provide necessary funds.

3. The plaintiff claimed damages under seven broad heads viz., claims 1 to 7, totalling in all Rs.9,82,665/-. The plaintiff has further stated that the defendant sent another letter on 17.01.2001 presuming that the plaintiff was willing to continue the work at the originally agreed rates and giving an option to the plaintiff to foreclose the contract. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that he sent a letter on 24.01.2001 and received a sum of Rs.1,49,659/- towards the work completed already. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that in the suit, the said amount received by him was only an interim payment and without prejudice to his claims for recovery of losses and damages suffered by him. Plaintiff further states that since the parties have agreed to an arbitration clause, the plaintiff approached the Original Side of this Court in O.P.No.270 of 2002 U/s. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that in and by order dated 03.02.2006, the Arbitration Original Petition was dismissed. Citing the period lost in the Sec.11 application, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming total sum of Rs.24,71,551/- together with interest and costs.

4. Brief summary of the written statement filed by the appellant as defendant in the suit:

The defendant denied entire allegations in the plaint save those that are specifically admitted. Thereafter, in so far as all the claims made by the plaintiff under various heads, the defendant denied each and every claim specifically and ultimately contended that a sum of Rs.1,49,659/- was the actual amount due and payable to the plaintiff for the work actually done. In view of the parties agreeing to bring down the curtains on the agreement, there was no question of any breach of contract entitling the plaintiff to claim damages.

5. Before the Trial Court, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr.Chakravarthi representing the appellant/defendant was examined as D.W.1. O