J.R.Goyal, J. - (1.)THIS is civil first appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 18/9/1991 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Kota in Civil Suit No.20/1983 whereby plaintiff's suit claiming Rs.42,100/- with interest was partly decreed to the tune of Rs.27022.95 with interest and his rest of the claim was rejected.
(2.)THE plaintiff is the registered contractor of the defendant department and the controversy involved in the present matter is in regard to non-payment and deductions made by the defendant under various heads which according to the plaintiff ought not to have been made as per BSR, 1972, whereas according to the defendant the amount has been paid to the plaintiff as per his work and one another issue in the matter is of interest on account of late payment by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The trial court framed the issues and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the remaining claim of the plaintiff was rejected. Hence, this first appeal by the appellant-plaintiff.

None is present for the respondent-State. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on the record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was given a contract to construct a two kilometer road from Keshoraipatan to Laban Part-II, Zone-II on 31/1/1974 and according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, road roller was to be provided by the defendant for which charges were to be recovered from the plaintiff according to the rate prescribed in BSR, 1972 but the defendants have recovered excess amount to the tune of Rs.9787 from the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that security deposit was to be refunded after six months from the date of completion of work i.e. 19/4/1978 but the said amount was refunded on 3/4/1981, therefore, the appellant was entitled to interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum. It was further submitted that defendant-respondents have wrongly deducted Rs.12938/- which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff but interest thereupon has not been awarded.

I have considered the above submissions. It demonstrates from the impugned judgment that issue no.2 which is in regard to payment of hiring charges of road roller, has partly been decided in favour of plaintiff-appellant and only an amount of Rs.4488/- was found payable on this head which was paid by the defendants to the concerned company from whom it was hired. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show that charges for road roller were payable in accordance to the BSR, 1972 in a situation where road roller was hired from one private company. Therefore, in this regard, I do not find any perversity in the findings of trial court.

(3.)SO far interest part is concerned, it is not disputed that plaintiff served a noticed upon the defendants on 13/1/1981 demanding payment of security deposit as well as other amount due upon the defendants in connection to this contract and it has been specifically averred that if defendants fail to make the payment within a period of two months then plaintiff would be entitled to interest thereupon @ 9% per annum. It reveals from the impugned judgment that within the stipulated period the security amount has been paid. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal.
Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.MUKESH_C_