Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant.
(2.) THIS appeal is against the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.11.1986 by which the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for a sum of Rs. 27,150/ - with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 20.10.1980. Hence, the State has preferred this regular appeal. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and gave its offer in response to the notice inviting tender of the defendant after which its tender was accepted for lining work of part of Rajasthan Canal. For this work, a work contract No. 19/1970 -80 was executed. According to the plaintiff, in terms of the contract, it was obligatory for the defendant to supply the necessary water on site but due to shortage of water during the period of execution of the work, there was some delay in completion of work as the work should have been started on 22.3.1979 and it should have been completed by 21.12.1979 and since the defendant failed to supply water in time, therefore, the work was completed by 15.8.1980. According to the plaintiff, in the contract, there was a provision for getting extension of time for which the respondent's concerned officers gave letters to the higher authorities for extension of time. Be it as it may be, the plaintiff completed total work of Rs. 2,00,075/ - against which the plaintiff has been paid Rs. 1,54,163/ - and the remaining amount of Rs. 30,703/ - has not been paid. Therefore, the total plaintiff's amount due in the defendant was Rs. 30,703/ - for which the plaintiff submitted bill to the defendant which has not been paid by the defendant. The plaintiff also claimed that the plaintiff's security amount of Rs. 15,209/ - was not paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's total dues in the defendant at the time of filing of the suit were Rs. 45,912/ -. The plaintiff claimed 18% per annum interest over that amount. The plaintiff gave a notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendant and then filed the present suit.
(3.) THE defendants submitted written statement and denied the plaintiff's claim of money, however, after admitting the contract between the parties by specifically admitting paras No. 1 to 8 in the written statement. The defendants' contention is that time was essence of the contract and work of removal of blown sand was not in the work order not the plaintiff removed the said blown stand. The defendants stated that the amount of Rs. 3,541/ - against the plaintiff's final bill is lying with the defendants with security amount of Rs. 15,209/ - totalling to Rs. 18,750/ - and this amount the defendants are ready to pay. The defendants, therefore, denied that the plaintiff's case of Rs. 45,912/ - after admitting their liability of Rs. 18,750/ -. The defendants denied the liability of interest also.;