THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR A.S. No. 12 of 2006 and Cross Objections (SFR) No.2231 of 2006 Common Judgment: This appeal suit is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004 passed in O.S. No. 269 of 2001 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, and the plaintiff filed cross objections in the said appeal. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,19,547/- being the principal and interest due from the defendants for the contract works done by the plaintiff and withheld amount of Rs.2,17,379/- on 01.07.1999 payable with interest at 24% p.a. and for costs. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows. The plaintiff is a registered Class-I civil contractor and in pursuant to the tenders called for by the second defendant for closing the breach No.2 at KM 1.450 to KM 1.700 of Rallapadu Reservoir Bund, Kandukur, the plaintiff filed his tender and having accepted the same the second defendant entered into an agreement on 22.04.1995. Then, the plaintiff started the work and on 29.04.1995 the second defendant inspected the site and observed that the stripping quantity in the bed which is in the slushy nature is being removed with the aid of machinery and conveyed at low places upstream with a lead of 300 metres and in the estimates no lead is proposed for the above quantity and that plaintiff has to be paid allowing 300 metres lead to stripping quantity which is slushy and cannot be reused for the embankment. For the same the Chief Engineer also gave approval. The plaintiff carried out the work accordingly. Subsequently, there were unprecedented floods during the period from 06.05.1995 to 08.05.1995 and the work done by the plaintiff was damaged and washed away and shoals were formed in the breach. The second defendant inspected the site on 11.05.1995 and held that shoals which were formed in the breach have to be removed by the plaintiff with a lead of 300 metres, which is an extra work for the second time due to flood damages. Accordingly, the plaintiff removed the shoals and filled up scours as per the instructions of the Department. Supplemental agreements dated 26.02.1996 and 11.10.1996 were entered into for the said extra and additional works. The plaintiff who carried out the works i.e., removal of the shoals and bailing of flood water into the breach portion, is entitled to receive Rs.1,87,365/- and Rs.67,600/- respectively. Since the plaintiff completed the work he is entitled for return of earnest money deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and FSD at 2 ½% of Rs.3,52,084/-, which comes to Rs.4,52,084/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendants paid only Rs.2,34,705/- on 01.07.1999 keeping illegally a sum of Rs.2,17,379/- in view of the objection raised by the Audit Department. The objection raised by the Audit Department is not correct and no excess amount was paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a notice on 25.12.1999 calling upon the defendants to pay the said amount with interest, but the third defendant gave a reply on 19.01.2000 with all false allegations. Hence, he filed the suit. The third defendant filed a written statement and defendants 1 and 2 adopted the same. According to the defendants, the work entrusted to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 22.04.1995 was completed by him by 10.05.1996 and an amount of Rs.5,52,084/- was paid to the plaintiff by withholding an amount of Rs.2,17,379/- on the objections raised by the Audit Department as excess amount. According to them, the stripped soils were conveyed with a lead of 300 metres and as per the SSR the rates for earth work excavation and conveyance are provided including cost of operations i.e., loading, unloading and stocking etc., and these operations would not take place twice when the earth work excavation with conveyance was taken up at a time and accordingly the rates for the earth work excavation and conveyance are not admissible twice. The over payments of Rs.2,17,379/- was noticed by the Audit Department and hence the said amount was withheld from the amounts due to the plaintiff. As per the agreement, it is stipulated that in case of over payments or wrong payments made if any, such additional payments will be deducted in the subsequent payments or final bills or at any time or thereafter from the deposits of the contractor. The lower Court framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? 2. To what relief. On behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 alone was examined and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked. The lower Court, on appreciation of the entire material and evidence, decreed the suit with costs for Rs.3,19,547/- with future interest at 6% p.a., on Rs.2,17,379/- from the date of suit till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred the present appeal. Whereas, the plaintiff filed cross objections in the appeal contending that the Court below ought to have granted interest at 18% p.a., instead of 6% p.a. The only contention of the learned Government Pleader for the appellants/defendants is that while arriving at supplementary agreements, rates for the removal of loose soil and disposing of the same with a lead of 300 metres, the rates for loading and unloading elements were not deducted and thus resulted extra payment as per the supplementary agreements and the wrong computation and extra payment was pointed out by the audit staff. Admittedly, the defendants and the plaintiff have entered into supplementary agreements dated 26.02.1996 and 11.10.1996 i.e., after heavy cyclone rains occurred from 06.05.1995 to 08.05.1995. Having regard to the fact that the defendants entered into an agreement and when the plaintiff claims that he has completed the work and when the second defendant also inspected the work and sent inspection notes vide Exs.A6 and A7 which are not in dispute, now the defendants cannot go back and say that the agreements Exs.A4 and A5 are not correct and certain aspects were not taken into consideration while entering into those agreements. The lower Court has assigned valid reasons for decreeing the suit. I do not see any reasons to interfere with the same. As far as cross objections are concerned, the plaintiff is claiming interest at 18% p.a. on the ground that it is a commercial transaction and in support of his contention he has relied on the decisions reported in Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samithi, Prathipadu, Guntur District v. M. Sambaiah, and Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd., Kakinada v. N. Rajagopal and Co., Coimbatore. But, according to the learned Government Pleader, there is no clause for payment of interest in the agreements. When there is no clause for payment of interest in the agreements, the plaintiff is not entitled for any interest. In view of the same, there are no grounds in the appeal as well as in the cross objections and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeal suit and cross objections are dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 18.11.2011 Nsr