IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 481 of 2004 With R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 141 of 2005 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 481 of 2004 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT THRO' CHIEF SECTRETARY Versus ASHOK BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. BHARAT VYAS ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)

No. 1 MR KG SUKHWANI(871) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 11/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( of the ‘Code’) at the instance of the original defendant challenges the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003, passed in Special Civil Suit No. 107 of 1988 by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Vadodara, whereby the plaintiff’s suit was partly decreed with cost and the defendant was directed to pay Rs. 5,95,911.52 to the plaintiff with interest at 15% from the date of the suit till realization.

2. The brief facts of the parties are as they are stated before the learned Trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit to recover Rs. 9,39,990/- against the defendant State of Gujarat along with interest @ of 18% to the decretal amount from the date of the suit till realisaiton, pleading that the plaintiff being a registered partnership firm is the registered Government Contractor under Class B. The Executive Engineer, R & B, Division, Baroda, invited the tender from the public for the work of construction of the additional building for Central Library, at Baroda. The plaintiff filed the tender, and his tender was found competitive and was accepted by the Executive Engineer, R & B. As per the terms and conditions, the plaintiff deposited the security amount and pursuant to which the work order was issued for commencing the work. An agreement was also executed vide B-1/56 of 1981-82, between the plaintiff and the Executive Engineer, R & B Department. The work order was amounting to Rs. 9,71,923.49/-. The plaintiff was required to start the work as per the work order from 29.03.1982. The reckoning date to complete the work was 28.6.1983 that is within 15 months from it being commenced. As usual the delay of hindrances and breaches alleged to have been committed by the R & B Department, the work could not be completed by the due date. The plaintiff pleaded that it was a tender where contract was executed for reciprocal promises, the fulfillment of the plaintiffs obligation rest upon the reciprocal promise made by the R & B Department. The various reciprocal promises and the terms and conditions of the contract were pleaded by the plaintiff for not completing the work on or before due date. The plaintiff further pleaded that he has called for the R & B department for the extension of the time limit. In response to such request it was recommended to complete the work before 22.08.1985. The plaintiff therefore, pleaded that he cannot be found the defaulter for not completing the work within the time limit as the officers of the R & B Department, themselves have suggested to extend the time limit to complete the work.

3. On completion of the work plaintiff has been issued the completion certificate by the R & B Department. Final bill was prepared and was accepted by the plaintiff under protest and subsequent thereto the security deposit was also released in favour of the plaintiff.

4. On the aforesaid pleading the plaintiff claimed that all these aspects suggest that the plaintiff has completed the work which he was handed over by way of contract and yet the plaintiff has not been paid the full amount of the work assigned to him. The plaintiff taking the different figures to tolly of relief claimed the total outstanding amount of Rs. 9, 39,990.60/- and claimed the recovery of the same along with 18% interest. The State Government in its usual defence denied the various assertions made by the plaintiff t