J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.186/1994 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad. The suit is one for realisation of money. It is the case of the plaintiff that the panchayat has entrusted him with two works; one relating to digging of well and the other in relation to repairs and other things of a road. According to the plaintiff, the estimated expenditure for the well was Rs.15,000/= out of which Rs.10,500/= had been paid and the balance amount of Rs.4,500/= is due. So far as the other work is concerned, it is stated that the work involved an expenditure of Rs.21,800/= and supervisory charge for 20 days at the rate of Rs.100/= totalling Rs.23,800/= out of which Rs.5,000/= had been paid and therefore the balance amount of Rs.18,800/= is due under the second contract. Claiming interest at the rate of 18%, a total claim is made for Rs.29,880/=.

2. As against this, the defendants would contend that work was done under the untied scheme and as per the provisions of the said scheme, the work has to be done directly by the panchayat and there was no provision for entrusting the work with any contractor and accordingly, they had don