THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT No.707 of 2004 & XOBJ No.707 of 2004 Dated:- 24th January, 2010 Between:- State of Andhra Pradesh …Appellants AND Kota Yanadi Reddy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT No.707 of 2004 AND XOBJ No.707 of 2004 JUDGMENT:- The appellants herein are challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2002 passed in O.S.No.32 of 1995 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,44,163/- contending inter alia that he entered into agreement with the Superintending Engineer (R & B) (Cyclone Relief Project Circle), Ongole on 24.02.1992 for construction of Cyclone shelters of Mallayapalem, Ganga Dibba, Sambunipalem and Javvagu Lakshmi Puram in Nellore District, within a period of fifteen months from the date of the agreement. The total cost of the project was Rs.22,50,000/-. According to the plaintiff, as there was no arrangement for forming approaches for conveying the material to the site as per the agreement, the delay occurred in executing the work. It is also the case of the plaintiff that due to non posting of in-charge engineer, there was delay in measuring the work. The plaintiffs claimed the amount towards price escalation in the meanwhile. The stand of the defendants is that the plaintiff should have made his own arrangements in forming the approaches for conveying material to the site and that the plaintiff should have made his own arrangements in forming the approaches for conveying material to the site and that the plaintiff delayed presentation of bills and he is responsible for the delay. 3. The only issue framed by the Court below is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, the Engineer was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked. 5. The Court below, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the price escalation amount and accordingly, the suit was decreed for Rs.2,38,453/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 10% per annum. However, the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the handling charges was rejected by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed this appeal. 6. Both the learned counsel submitted that the subject matter of this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Appeal Suit No.948 of 1998 dated 29.06.2005 and have agreed that this appeal may be disposed in similar lines of the said judgment. 7. I have perused the above referred judgment. The subject matter of this appeal and the said judgment are similar except on the point of fixing of rate of interest. In the above referred judgment, the subsequent interest awarded by the Court below was 10% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and it was held by this Court that the findings of the trial Court are based on evidence available on record and cannot be said to be unsustainable findings and the appeal was disposed of decreeing the suit with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization with costs and thus modified the appeal to the extent of subsequent interest only. In the instant case also, the subsequent interest awarded by the Court below was 10% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. As submitted by both the learned counsel, It appears that the subject matter of this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment referred supra and can be disposed of on the similar lines. 8. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.2,38,453/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty eight thousand four hundred and fifty three only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization with throughout costs. The appeal is partly allowed with costs to the extent of modifying the subsequent rate of interest only. In all other aspects, the findings in the judgment and decree of the Court below are hereby confirmed. 9. In the light of the above order, no further orders need be passed in Cross Objections filed in this appeal being XOBJ No.707 of 2004, which is hereby dismissed. ____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 24th January, 2011 Bvv