Gopal Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) Plaintiff Madho-prasad has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur on 8.9.1979 dismissing the suit for the recovery of Rs. 37,200/-.
(2.) The plaintiffs case was that he had offered to undertake two construction works of Bhatasia Irrigation Project Parts A and C in Parbatsar Tehsil, Nagpur District in the year 1972 and his tender was accepted by the defendant Irrigation Department. It was averred that he started work of part A in June, 1972 and of part C in August, 1972 and completed them on 24.2.1974 and the defendant made some payments for the work. It was further averred that despite the various representations made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not make payment for the cost of water which he had to incur in obtaining water for the construction of the works. It was stated that the officers of the Irrigation Department had even recommended his case. According to the averments in the plaint the plaintiff had spent Rs. 12,750/- for water. It was then averred that the measurement were not properly taken by the Department and they have measured the works on computation basis and have unauthorisedly recovered FIs. 11,000/- from the IVth bill of Bisalpur work paid in November, 1973. The amount was claimed along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In the joint written statement the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs tender was accepted for parts A and C of the project and that he had completed the works. It was, however, denied that the defendants were liable to pay the cost of water as according to them it was not agreed upon by the parties. Regarding the measurements it was stated that the final measurements of the work was correctly recorded in the Measurement Book and this measurement was done by trapeozatial method which is correct and standard method of measurement of such type of work and, therefore, the defendants were well within their right to recover Rs. 11,000/- from the plaintiff. In rejoinder the plaintiff reiterated his claim for Rs. 37,200/-.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following seven issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff executed two works at Bhatia Irrigation Project Parts A & C on P.W.A. basis as mentioned in the plaint 7(p). 2. Whether the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 12,750/08 as cost of water, which the plaintiff incurred in connection with the construction of the above referred two works from the defendants 7(p). 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.4,729/59 say FIs.4,730/ - as detailed in paras No. 10(a)(b)(c)(d) and 11 to 22 of plaint (p). 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 11,000/- deducted as illegal and unauthorised recoveries from IV running bill of Bisalpur 9-13 August, 1973 paid in Nov. l73 as detailed in paras No. 10(a)(b)(c)(d) and 11 to 28 to the plaint 7(p). 5. Whether the plaintiff in entitled to recover FIs. 8,686/40 as interest from the defendants. 12% from 1.4.1973 to 5.10.1975 and he is further entitled and pendortali to and future interest as claimed in the plaint 7(p). 6. Whether the plaintiff in entitled to recover Rs. 33/60 as notice expenses form the defendants 7(p). 7. Relief.;