IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21ST) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1352 of 1994 Between: The District Collector, Guntur & 3 others … Appellants And: Konda Ramireddy … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1352 of 1994 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 25.02.1993 in OS No.144 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, wherein, the claim of the respondent herein was allowed in part granting decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,259/- with interest at 12% per annum. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants- defendants and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,06,310/- being the amount due from the appellants/defendants for the work done by the plaintiff in execution of the contract i.e., ‘lining the beds and sides of NS Right main canal from K.M. 78-35 to K.M.78.55’. It is not disputed that the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.13,200/- at the time of submitting the tender and also deposited a further sum of Rs.8,300/- at the time of entering in to the agreement. According to the plaintiff, he has completed the work as per the terms of the agreement and he was paid first and part bill on 29.09.1986 in a sum of Rs.3,53,813/-. A supplement agreement was executed on 31.10.1987, as per which the plaintiff had to do the total work worth Rs.7,86,888/-. The plaintiff claims that he completed the entire work covered by the original and also supplemental agreement and handed over the site to the department and obtained a certificate. A second bill dated 18.11.1987 for a sum of Rs.2,56,132/- was also paid, but there was a balance amount of Rs.1,98,437/- due to the plaintiff, besides refundable deposit of Rs.21,500/-. The plaintiff gave a notice under Section 80 CPC on 11.01.1988 and the defendants gave a reply, for which, the plaintiff gave further notice subsequently on 31.03.1988. The 2nd defendant made part payment of Rs.1,00,942/-. Thus a total amount of Rs.7,10,887/- was paid as against a sum of Rs.7,86,882/-, leaving the balance amount of Rs.75,995/- besides deposits of Rs.21,500/-. 4. The 2nd defendant filed written statement, denying their liability on the ground that the plaintiff has not completed the work before June 1987 and the work covered under Item No.4-B of Schedule-A was not attended to. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to his final bill without completing the work done under item 4 of Schedule-A annexed to the agreement? (2) Whether the suit is premature? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? (5) To what relief? 6. During trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.19 on his behalf. On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 was examined, but no documents were got marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit in part for a sum of Rs.95,259/- with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred the present appeal. 8. It is not disputed that the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the work of ‘lining the beds and sides of NS Right main canal from K.M. 78-35 to K.M.78.55’. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.13,200/- at the time of submitting the tender and a sum of Rs.8,300/- at the time of entering into agreement. It is also not disputed that the defendants have paid a total sum of Rs.7,10,887/-. According to the plaintiff, the work done by him was of the value of Rs.7,86,882/- and after deducing the amount already paid, still a sum of Rs.75,995/- is due besides, deposit amount of Rs.21,500/-. The defendants contend that the plaintiff has not completed the work. The specific objection raised by the defendants in respect of item 4 B of Schedule A, whose value is stated to be only Rs.93,000/-. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the plaintiff has not completed the work as per the agreement. 9. DW.1 in his evidence categorically admitted that the plaintiff has done the work worth Rs.7,84,646/- and he is entitled for the said amount and out of the said amount, admittedly, a sum of Rs.7,10,887/- was paid, leaving the balance amount of Rs.73,759/-. In view of the categorical admission of DW.1 in the evidence regarding the liability for payment of the balance amount due and there being no other evidence on record to show that the plaintiff has not completed the work as alleged by the defendants, the plaintiff is certainly entitled for recovery of the balance amount of Rs.73,759/- together with advance amount of Rs.13,200/- and Rs.8,300/-, making up a total sum of Rs.95,259/-. The trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, particularly, taking into consideration of the admission made by DW.1 in his evidence, rightly decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.95,259/- with interest at 12% per annum. 10. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, does not call for any interference by this Court. There are no merits in this appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.09.2010 bss