THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.NO.3398 OF 1992 JUDGMENT:- The defendants in O.S.No.207 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur are the appellants herein. The suit one was filed for recovery of Rs.67,372-03 paise being the amount due under a contract work entrusted to the plaintiff for construction of the culvert and work of cyclone damaged road repair to Appikatla to Buddham road at K.M.4 (3/6 to 4/0). The work for providing gravel to the approaches was given to the another person. The plaintiff has pleaded that the entire work was completed on 31.12.1978 and a written intimation was given and in spite of reminders the defendants have not paid the amount and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount which comprises the amount retained by the 3rd defendant belonging to the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the liability and also pleading that the work was not completed and it was admitted that an agreement was entered into stipulating the period for completion of work is two months but it was extended subsequently. It was further averred in the written statement that the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.5,906/- as per the measurements recorded by the then Executive Staff at pages 18 to 22 in M Book No.1800 GB and final bill prepared at page 23 to 28/1800 G.B. Further, the contractor not entitled for any interest as per clause 69 of P.S to A.P.D.S.S. for non- finalisation of the final bill which is due to non-conclusion of regular agreement. Further, the suit is barred by limitation and there is no proper notice under Section 80 C.P.C and there is no agreement or usage of custom to pay any interest much less at 18% p.a. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit amount. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as alleged in the pliant? 2. To what relief the parties are entitled to? On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked Exs. A-1 to A-29 and on behalf of the defendants DW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B- 1 to B-3. After considering the material evidence on record, the lower court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.11,133-40 paise with interest @ 12% from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present has been filed by the defendants. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount? POINT:- The fact that the plaintiff was entrusted with the contract work and that he has undertaken some contract work is not in dispute. The lower court has relied exclusively on Ex.B-5 which is the measurement book and entries made at page Nos.26 to 28 discloses the plaintiffs has carted 5000 cubic meters of earth and also did part of the work and he is said to be entitled to a tune of Rs.19,763-35 paise and on that income tax of 2% has to be deducted. The lower court found that the total amount that will be due to the plaintiff will come to Rs.24,401-40 paise and the value of the cement and steel were also deducted and the payments made to the plaintiff were also deducted. After deducting the payments out of the amount of Rs.21,161-45 paise the lower court has determined the amount due to the plaintiff as Rs.11,133-40 paise. Therefore, it is quite clear from the registers maintained by the defendants, which is M.C. Book the particulars of the work done by the plaintiff and also the value of the work and the amount payable to the plaintiff are clearly shown. There is no termination of the contract and the defendants having got the work done by the plaintiff have to pay the amount. There is no proof that the delay has caused any loss to the defendants. There is no cancellation of the contract and in the absence of any cancellation of contract, the defendants cannot deny the liability. Therefore, from the material evidence on record, it is a case where the work has been done by the plaintiff and for the value of the work which was recorded in Ex.B-5, the suit has been rightly decreed by the lower court and consequently there are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 21-10-2011 TSNR