IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 AS.No. 273 of 1998(C) -------------------------- OS.207/1991 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDINGS AND LOCAL WORKS, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMAND RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------- *1. N.KANNAPPAN, S/O. NANU, CONTRACTOR RESIDING AT VATTAVILA VEEDU, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (DIED).(LRS IMPLEADED) * ADDL.R2 TO R5 IMPLEADED 2. V.VASANTHA, KNNANVILA, KILIMANOOR P.O., KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 3. V.K. DAMU, KNNANVILA, KILIMANOOR P.O., KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 4. V.K. KARTHIKA, KNNANVILA, KILIMANOOR P.O., KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 5. V.K. ASWATHY, KNNANVILA, KILIMANOOR P.O., KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. * THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DICEASED SOLE RESPONDENT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2TOR5 VIDE ORDER DATED 05/01/2010 IN I.A.NO.3963/2007 R2 TO R5 BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.HARISH GOPINATH THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AS No.273 of 1998-C ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 1st November 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is by the defendant State in a suit for recovery of money, allegedly due under a contract. The contract for civil work was ultimately terminated by the Government on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to discharge his obligations under the contract and complete the work. 2. One of the grounds on which the court below has granted the decree is that the contract has been terminated by the Superintending Engineer, though the agreement was entered into by the Executive Engineer. This was done, relying on the judgment of this court in K.Abdul Khader v. State & others (1993(2) KLJ 977). The said decision has later been reversed by this court. But, that by itself does not improve the case of the appealing defendant. The court below has, on the basis of the materials on record, AS No.273/98 2 found that laches and lapses were on the part of the defendant also and the plaintiff cannot be accused of having committed any wrong in relation to the contract. The court below, on the basis of the evidence on record, granted a decree for realisation of amounts towards loss and damages sustained due to price hike and for recovery of the security amount in deposit. 3. Considering the materials on record, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned decree and judgment. The appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta AS No.273/98 3 AS No.273/98 4