C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J. - (1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.29 of 2001 assails decree and judgement, dated 21.06.2007, of the V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, FAC-VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad, Bodhan.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the appellants/plaintiffs entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh for execution of the work of improvement of carriage way of Hyderabad-Medak-Bodhan road from Kilometer 106/6 to 112/0 - Nizamabad District under Ex.A.1 agreement dated 27.02.1999. The duration of contract was twelve (12) months from the date of handing over of the site. The contract provides for different milestones for completion of work. As the work could not be completed within the stipulated time, the contract was extended upto 31.03.2002. However, respondent No.1 has terminated the contract on 14.03.2002 and forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Further Security Deposit (FSD) and the work done amount due to the appellants. A few months prior to the termination of contract, the appellants filed the aforementioned suit for passing a decree for Rs. 46,21,468/- with future interest at 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realisation. The said amount has been claimed under various heads, the details of which need not be referred to and it would suffice to note that entire claim was made based on the plea that due to delayed payment of bills, the respondents have committed breach of contract, as a result of which, the appellants have sustained loss. The only head which is not related to the said plea is release of the EMD and FSD to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-.
(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a written statement was filed wherein they, inter alia, denied the claim of the appellants. While refuting the allegations that there was delay in making payments, counter allegation was made in the written statement that the appellants have stopped the work and not resumed work after release of Lumpsum Deposit-II (LSD II) and part bill and that the work done portion was partly damaged due to non carrying out of Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) item. That on account of the failure on the part of the appellants to complete the work as per the agreement, the contract was terminated under Clause 60 (a) of the Preliminary Specifications to Andhra Pradesh Standard Schedules vide letter No.242, dated 14.03.2002 (Ex.B.9) (wrongly mentioned as 14.02.2002 in the written statement) and further payment for the work done was forfeited.;