JUDGMENT

A suit for recovery of money was partly decreed by the trial court. It is pertaining to the construction work of a theater complex. The construction work of the roof was given to the plaintiff. Exts.A1, A2 and A13 agreements were entered into by the parties in connection with the abovesaid work. During the course of work, due to differences between the parties, they could not complete the work. It is thereafter the plaintiff who had done the work partly, the construction work of roof, came up with a suit for recovery of money as the cost of the work. The trial court decreed the suit in part, based on Exts.C2 and C3 report. Ext.C2 is the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Ext.C3 is yet another report submitted by another person. Admittedly, the person who prepared Ext.C3 report is not an Engineer by profession or a qualified person, hence cannot be brought under the purview of Section 45 of the Evidence Act . Yet another person, a qualified structural Engineer, was examined as PW3 in order to show the value of materials used for the said construction. But, he did not visit the property in order to ascertain the quality of materials or its quantity and no report