A contractor is entitled to a portion of extra costs incurred due to delays when both parties share responsibility.

Sathish Ninan, J.

The decree for money is under challenge in this appeal by the defendants.

2. The defendants issued Ext.B3 notice inviting tender for construction of MVIP Kuravilangad distributory from chainage 6400 metres to 7550 metres. The plaintiff was the successful tenderer. Ext.B1 is the agreement dated 05.10.2007, entered into between the parties, with regard to the work. As per the agreement, the work was to commence on 08.10.2007, and was to be completed before 07.10.2008. The plaintiff commenced the work. However, there was obstruction from the local residents against blasting of rocks. Such activity was necessary for carrying out the work in question. Due to such obstruction, the hard rock could not be removed by blasting and had to be carried out manually. This resulted in high labour charges and also delay in completion. The work was completed on 31.07.2009. The suit was filed claiming the extra expenditure alleged to have been incurred by the plaintiff consequent on the delay in completion.

3. The claim was denied by the defendants relying upon the supplemental agreements executed by the plaintiff whereunder, he agreed to carry out work during the extended period at the original contract rate. It was also contended that the defendants cannot be blamed for the delay and that the delay occurred due to the inefficiency of the plaintiff.

4. The trial court relied on Ext.C1(a) Expert Engineers'

Report and granted a decree for realisation of ₹ 60,70,071/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.

5. We have heard learned Sri.P.I.Davis, the learned Special Government Pleader (Irrigation) for the appellants-defendants and Sri.K.S.Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

The points that arise for determination in this appeal are:-

(i) Was the plaintiff responsible for the delay in completion of the work? (ii) Is the plaintiff entitled to claim higher rates on the ground of delay? (iii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference?

6. The agreed date for completion of the work was

07.10.2008. The work was completed only on 31.07.2009. Consequent on the delay extra expenditure had to be incurred. The claim is for the same.

7. According to the plaintiff, the reasons for the delay were public agitation against the blasting of rocks, the interdictions by the Panchayat and police authorities and also the interdictory orders in the suits OS 187/2008 and OS 231/2008, both of the Munsiff's Court, Pala.

8. That the work in question involved blasting and removing of hard rock, is not in dispute. Ext.A4 is the copy of the plaint in OS 231/2008, a suit filed by a nearby resident to restrain the plaintiff herein from causing nuisance to the peaceful residence and from conducting blasting operations without complying with the requirements under law. The suit was filed on 17.10.2008. Ext.A5 is the interim order of injunction on similar lines. Ext.A9 is the copy of the plaint in OS 187/2008. It is yet another suit for injunction by another local resident seeking injunction of similar nature. Clause 81.4 of the tender conditions provided for carrying out of blasting operations in due compliance with the provisions of the Explosives Act . Noticeably, the relief sought in the suit and the interim order of injunction passed by the court only restrained the plaintiff from carrying out the blasting operations except as sanctioned under law. Therefore, while it is possible that, under cover of the suits and the orders therein, the plaintiff might have had interference from the local residents in car