IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 AS.No. 420 of 1996() ------------------------------- OS.38/1991 of IIND ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------- C.ABOOBACKER, AGED 47, S/O. ABDULLA, MARA HOUSE, SANTHOSH NAGAR P.O., CHENGALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.ABOOBAKCER (EDATHLA) SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS , NORTH CIRCLE, CALICUT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D., ROADS AND BRIDGES, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAD THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- A.S.No.420 OF 1996 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The plaintiff in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant. He is a Government contractor. He had undertaken a contract for the “work of improvement of Mullankunnu-Naduvalpuzha Pasukadavu Road, K.M. 0/0 to 6/0in Kozhikode District”. Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the competent authority in the Government on 24.11.1981 with an accepted tender at 28.8% above the estimate rate. Time for for completion originally fixed was a period of 12 months, which expired on 9.12.1982. The plaintiff admittedly completed the work on 29.6.1985. The work was for widening an existing road, putting up drains on the sides of the road and matters attendant thereto. After completion of the work, final measurements were taken and payments were made on 11.4.1986, nearly three years thereafter, but before any claim AS.420/96 2 become barred by limitation. The petitioner filed an application seeking leave to sue as an indigent. That was in March, 1989. That was later converted to a suit, with leave. At trial, it was categorically found that the claims were settled in terms of the final bills and final payment was recorded and that the amounts were received by the plaintiff on 11.4.1986. 2.With the aforesaid, the plea of the plaintiff appellant gets confined to three issues. One is that the rubble he has brought up and stocked in the side of the road were taken away by miscreants or local public and therefore, he had to suffer loss. The next ground of claim is that there was delay in supply of departmental materials. He further pleads that he had to avail bank loan for the work and delay in executing the work has resulted in accruing with interest in the loan account. He attributed the delay in the work to the heavy rain in the locality also. AS.420/96 3 3.The plaintiff gave evidence as PW1. DW1 is an Engineer of the department. The trial court also took into consideration Exts.A1 to A10 and B1 to B10, which include the file in relation to the contract. It categorically held that the claims are unfounded though the plaint claim is not barred by limitation. 4.Having considered the pleadings and evidence, we do not find any ground to disagree with the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. The finding that the delay in the work was attributable to the plaintiff not being able to carry out the work in time and that the delay is not attributable to any reason that could be saddled on the defence stand. We also find that no objections have been raised by the plaintiff when the “M Books” were signed by him in token of having accepted whatever has been reflected thereon. The fact that he had suffered financial loss on account of mounting interest in the bank loan is not a ground to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to any amount from the defendants. AS.420/96 4 5.For the aforesaid reasons, we find that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, we direct that the parties will suffer the respective costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.7/10.