J UDGEMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present two Suits for Recovery of Rs. 1,43,80,795/- in CS(COMM) 249/2017and Rs.2,62,53,812/- in CS(COMM) 250/2017have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff, a Civil Engineering Contractor was enlisted with the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “DDA”) as Class-I (B&R) Contractor. The defendant No. 1- DDA sometime in early April, 2002, invited the tenders for construction of 160 HIG Category-II Houses (four storey) and 160 Scooter Garages in LIC Pocket-II, Sector B, Vasant Kunj which was sub-divided into two groups i.e., Internal Development and Construction of 80 HIG Category-II Houses and 80 Scooters Garages (Group-I) and Internal Development and Construction of another 80 HIG Category-II Houses and 80 Scooter Garages (Group-II). The estimated cost of Group-I was Rs. 2,95,35,245/- and the estimated cost of Group-II was Rs.2,95,25,621/-.

3. Defendant No. 1-DDA accepted the Item Rate Tender of the plaintiff at Rs.2,55,24,764 and Rs.2,56,24,273/- for Group I and II respectively and the work was awarded by two separate Letters of Award, both dated 19th April, 2002 for each group. A formal Agreement dated 26th April, 2002 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2-Executive Engineer/SWD4/DDA.

4. According to the Agreement, the work for both the Groups had to be completed within a period of 24 months from the date of start i.e.

29.04.2002.

5. It is asserted by the plaintiff that heimmediately mobilized his resources, including men, material and machinery and reached the site on

28th April, 2002 with duly intimation to the defendant No.1-DDA vide Letter dated 06th May, 2002.

6. It is claimed that the Building Construction Contract was solely based on performance of reciprocal obligations.The following obligations were required to be fulfilled by defendant No.1 as a pre-requisite for the timely completion of the Contract which are as under:

(i) That the site belongs to DDA free from encroachments and good for construction, without any litigation's and the same is in their (DDA's) possession for this work.

(ii) That the building plans showing various services such as water supply, sewerage, storm water drains, land use etc. are duly approved by the local municipal/competent authorities.

(iii) That the detailed drawings, structural as well as architectural are available with the Department for smooth and efficient execution of the work to achieve the completion within the stipulated time period.

7. It is asserted that the defendant No. 1/DDA from the very beginning failed to honour the fundamental reciprocal obligations under the Contract.Though the site was handed over on 27th April, 2002, but immediately upon start of the earth work, it was soon found that the site was not conducive for construction as most of the blocks were located on back filled ditches and the strata was filled up or erratic in nature as a result of which the foundation bed/ground was not firm.

8. Further, the defendant No. 1/DDA failed to supply the layout plan and the structural drawings which were providedonly by 18.06.2002 and not at the start of the work. The plaintiff who had already mobilized his men, material and machinery as per the scheduled requirement of the Work, had to keep his labour, machinery and the establishment idle at site which resulted in losses to the plaintiff.

9. It is further asserted that the since the entire site was located at localized back filled ditches, there was a marked difference in the level of adjoining plots. Thus, the belated structural drawings that were provided to the plaintiff were of no use as in all the blocks expansion joints were to be provided and it was not clear from the drawings as to how the cross walls and plinth beam could be provided in view of the level difference between the adjoining blocks.

10. To resolve these issues, the plaintiff wrote a Letter dated 08.08.2002 reque