HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No. 3778 of 2000 Date: 05-08-2010 Between: Superintending Engineer …….. petitioner and Akkiraju Krishna Murthy and another …… Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No. 3778 of 2000 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.49 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Gurazala, dated 26-09-1996. 2. The factual background of the revision is that the first respondent herein, who died pending this revision and whose legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 3 to 6 vide orders of this Court in C.M.P.No.23710 of 1998, dated 31-08-2000, was a contractor and entered into an agreement No.48/73-74 for the construction of submergible bridge with the revision petitioner herein. Disputes arose on execution of the work concerning the money payable to the contractor which dispute was referred to the second respondent, as per the orders passed in O.S.No.22 of 1980 and O.P.No.264 of 1982, who passed an award on 11-08-1987 allowing some claims and rejecting other claims. In O.P.No.508 of 1987 and O.P.No.513 of 1987, the award was remitted back to the Arbitrator for giving reasons and the Arbitrator resubmitted the award after giving reasons. Then the Court gave notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act on which the contractor filed O.S.No.49 of 1996 to make the award the Rule of the Court and O.P.No.59 of 1996 for modification of the award to the extent his claims were not allowed. The revision petitioner filed O.P.No.60 of 1996 to set aside the award. 3. The revision petitioner resisted the claims of the contractor firstly contending that the Arbitrator mis-conducted himself and the reasons are untenable. The revision petitioner contended that the delay of four months in starting the work was due to the fault of the contractor and the department is not responsible for supplying the blasting material, but still attempted to help the contractor. It was also contended that the supply of steel before 18-12-1975 also did not arise and the contractor had no necessity to do any plastering work as claimed by him. The recovery made by the department was as per the agreement and various reasons given by the Arbitrator for allowing different claims are unsustainable. 4. On such conflicting claims, the trial Court framed issues on the entitlement of the contractor for making the award the Rule of the Court to the extent it was in his favour and modifying the award to the extent it is unfavourable to him. 5. The trial Court rendered a common judgment, which is impugned herein, after marking Exs.A-1 to A-42 during the trial and enquiry, while the parties did not adduce any oral evidence. 6. The trial Court opined that the revision petitioner, having not produced any evidence and having not advanced any arguments, had no material to rebut Exs.A-1 to A-42 and therefore, decreed O.S.No.49 of 1996 and allowed O.P.No.59 of 1996 in part. The award was consequently made the Rule of the Court in O.S.No.49 of 1996. 7. The revision petitioner contended that there was no condition in the agreement for providing blasting materials and any escalation of prices could not have been considered in view of the specific provision of clause 59 of the agreement. The diversion shall have to be provided by the contractor himself in respect of which no additional claim can be made on the mere estimates prepared by the department. No additional claim could have been made for the plastering work, and the incidental works attended to by the contractor would not entitle him to any additional amount and as per clause 69, awarding of interest at 14% per annum is contrary to the agreement. It was also contended that the decree in O.S.No.49 of 1996 is contrary to the terms of judgment which specified interest at 14% per annum. The revision petitioner also contended that not deciding O.P.No.259 of 1990 (O.P.No.60 of 1996) filed by him to set aside the award was also incorrect. 8. Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the revision petitioner, is heard and information was sought for from the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gurazala about the result of O.P.No.259 of 1990 (O.P.No.60 of 1996) as the legality of the impugned Judgment is also depending upon the result of O.P.No.259 of 1990. 9. The Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, by his letter, dated 03-08-2010 had informed that O.P.No.259 of 1990 was renumbered as O.P.No.60 of 1996 and was dismissed without costs on 01-10-1997 as no steps petition was filed. The communication from the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, thus, discloses that the petition filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the impugned award ended in dismissal and obviously no steps were taken so far from 01-07-1997 either to take steps or to have the original petition restored. In view of the said result of O.P.No.259 of 1990 (O.P.No.60 of 1996) negativing the request to set aside the impugned award and in the light of the total absence of any oral or documentary evidence for the revision petitioner before the trial Court in O.P.No.59 of 1990 or O.S.No.49 of 1996, the conclusion of the trial Court accepting Exs.A-1 to A-42 as providing justification for making the award the Rule of the Court to the extent of the claims of the contractor allowed by the award cannot be considered to be improper or unreasonable or baseless. The conclusions in O.S.No.49 of 1996, therefore, cannot be interfered with in exercise of the restricted revisional jurisdiction of this Court, while O.P.No.59 of 1996 is not the subject of this revision petition. The reasons of the Arbitrator accepted by the trial Court are, therefore, not susceptible to any interference. 10. However it is seen from the certified copy of the impugned Judgment (para-13) that the trial Court granted interest @ 14% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization though it did not specify whether it was confined to O.P.No.59 of 1996 or extended to O.S.No.49 of 1996 also, while it is true that the plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 1996 claimed interest at 18% per annum. The grant of interest from the date of award till the date of realization is within the realm of judicial discretion of the trial Court and when it obviously exercised such discretion in respect of grant of interest only at 14% per annum, such exercise of discretion should cover all the claims of the contractor under both the matters and could not have been different in respect of some claims. Therefore, the decree awarding interest at 18% per annum does not appear to be in tune with the Judgment and therefore, the decree has to be accordingly, modified. The Civil Revision Petition has to be ordered only to that extent. 11. In the result, the decree in O.S.No.49 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Gurazala, dated 26-09-1996 shall be modified by restricting the interest awarded by clause (ii) of the decree to 14% and not 18% and the Civil Revision Petition is ordered only to that extent without costs while confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.49 of 1996 in all other respects. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2010 YCR