DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) THE suit was for recovery of damages. The plaintiff invited tender for construction of a Diesel Loco Shed at Haldia. The defendant participated in such tender. The plaintiff accepted the tender of the defendant and placed a work order. The total value of the work order was Rs. 6,83,998.39p. The work was to be carried out in accordance with the plaintiff's General Conditions of Contract. According to the plaintiff the defendant delayed commencement of the work. In spite of repeated requests and demands, the defendant failed and neglected to resume work. In fact, the defendant abandoned the work. The plaintiff terminated the contract by a Notice dated March 4, 1981. The plaintiff, thereafter, floated a fresh tender. A fresh work order was issued to a third party for construction of the remaining portion of the Diesel Loco Shed for the sum of Rs. 8,64,627/ -. The plaintiff contended that, it was made to incur extra cost for getting the work completed by another agency. The defendant was obliged to compensate the plaintiff in respect of thereafter. The plaintiff assessed such compensation at Rs. 3,60,785.05p The plaintiff sought recovery of such sum along with interest therein by way of the instant suit.
(2.) THE defendant filed written statement in person. The defendant, thereafter, obtained assistance of the State Legal Aid Services. The learned Counsel appointed by the State Legal Aid Services to conduct the case on behalf of the defendant reported to this Hon'ble Court that, he was unable to get in touch with the defendant. Such fact was recorded by an Order dated August 26, 2013. The department was directed to serve an appropriate notice upon the defendant at the address mentioned in the cause title with regard to the suit. The hearing of the suit was consequently adjourned. By a report dated September 21, 2013 the Registrar, Original Side submitted the note of the Superintendent (Writ and Execution Department) dated September 21, 2013 for perusal of the Court. By such note the Superintendent (Writ and Execution Department) stated that, a notice dated was issued to the defendant and was received by the defendant on September 13, 2013. The defendant, therefore, was given notice of the pendency of the instant suit. The defendant did not to appear when the suit was taken up for hearing. No accommodation was sought for on his behalf. The plaintiff was entitled to and proceeded ex parte against the defendant. The suit was taken up for ex parte hearing on January 20, 2014. The plaintiff produced its sole witness Mr. Pabitra Mukhopadhyay who was examined in chief. Various documents were tendered in the evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the plaintiff.
(3.) ON the conclusion of the evidence on the part of the plaintiff the only submission made on behalf of the plaintiff was that, the plaintiff was entitled to the amount as claimed in the plaint.;