THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT. No. 500 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellants/defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2006 in O.S. No. 19 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, at Warangal, wherein the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants for recovery of money was decreed in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The sole plaintiff filed the above suit vide O.S. No. 19 of 2001 against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 35,19,575/-. The case of the plaintiff is that he being a special class contractor entered into an agreement on 21.10.1998 with the defendant No.2 for construction of two high-level bridges at KM 71/8-10 and KM 88/0-2 on the Sangareddy–Nanded–Akola Road in Medak District for Rs.1,14,86,710/- with 2.31% excess tender, to be completed within 18 months by 21.04.2000. The plaintiff mobilized men, machinery, capital and completed the first bridge by April 1999, but due to changes in designs, abnormally increased quantities, and defendants’ failure to finalize the site for the second bridge until May, 2000 (after the original contract period), the entire scope of work was altered, including dismantling of the old bridge and diversion works which were not part of the agreement. Though time was extended by letters dated 14.11.2000 and 28.03.2001 up to 30.04.2001 within which he completed the work, the plaintiff had incurred huge extra expenditure due to prolongation and changed market conditions. The plaintiff submitted his claims in August, 2000 but the same were not settled by the defendants.

4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendants filed written statement and contended that the work for the two bridges was awarded on tender basis at a bid value of Rs. 1,14,86,710/- with 2.3% excess, under agreement dated 21.10.1998, to be completed by 20.04.2000, and that the alignment of the second bridge at KM 88/0-2 was finalized as early as 17.11.1998 during joint inspection, duly marked on the ground, and notified to the plaintiff by letter dated 04.01.1999. Despite mobilization advance of Rs.5, 74,000/- and repeated notices, the plaintiff failed to start work in time and intentionally delayed execution to avoid forming a diversion road, which under Clause 8 of the special conditions was his own obligation. The defendants assert that dismantling of the old bridge was included by supplemental estimates approved by the Chief Engineer in January 2000, for which payment was made and accepted by the plaintiff, and the revised drawings were communicated in January, 2000 not in May 2000 as alleged. The delay was solely due to the plaintiff’s slackness and mala fide conduct. Floods in June, 2000 washed away only the temporary diversion, not materials or machinery, which had already been shifted by the plaintiff, and as per Clauses 12-10, the risks were entirely the contractors. According to the defendants, all payments were released as per agreement and award of the Technical Expert, and the plaintiff’s claims for revised rates, diversion road costs, or escalation are untenable since the delays were attributable to the plaintiff alone. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. II. ISSUES

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the amount of Rs.31,65,188/- as claimed in the plaint?

(2) Whether the construction of high Level bridges at KM. 71/8-10 and 88/10-2 of Sangareddy – Nanded – Akola Road not completed within the period of agreement?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the rates claimed for dismantle of bridges without approval of Chief Engineer?

(4) Whether the plaintiff received the amount for dismantle charges vide 5^th bil