: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.93 OF 2009 M/s. Pravin Construction through its Proprietor, Mr. Pravin Chandrakant Seth .. Appellant V/s. The Executive Engineer The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Corporation (M.I.D.C.), Ratnagiri .. Respondent ..... Mr. S.M. Oak i/by Mr. Sagar Joshi for the appellant Ms. Neeta Karnik for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. : 1. The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent for recovery of monies which according to the appellant were due and payable in regard to the work carried out pursuant to the tender granted in favour of the appellant. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri in the said suit being Special Civil Suit No.73 of 2008 dismissed the suit : 2 : against which the appellant herein has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard learned advocate on both the sides. It is a matter of record that the tender cost of the particular item in question was Rs.75,699/- whereas if the contention of the appellant is accepted, the tender cost of the item in question would be 75,69,900/-. It was sought to be argued by learned advocate Mr. Oak on behalf of the appellant that the rate quoted appearing in the tender cost is per Sq.meter whereas according to the respondent it was per 100 Sq.meter. 3. If one peruses impugned judgment, it is clear that whatever work which was undertaken by the appellant in so far as disputed items pursuing to the tender was over and there has been no dispute about it and measurements taken have been admitted by both the sides. 4. The only dispute is whether the rate quoted was per 100 sq.meter or per sq.meter. The learned trial Judge considered this aspect in the proper perspective : 3 : keeping in view the difference between the claim put up by the appellant and the claim put up by the respondent. It is worthwhile to note that as per the tender, the total cost of the tender in this item was Rs.75,966/-. It is inconceivable that the department would agree to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 75,69,900/-. In my view, the learned trial Judge has considered the issue raised before him in proper perspective. It is apparent that there is a mistake in mentioning of the rate while specifying the tender costs and difference is on account of putting up the decimal point at proper place. The contentions raised by the appellant before the learned trial Judge were rightly considered. Whatever contentions were raised before this Court, cannot be accepted and the view taken by the learned trial Judge is inconsonance with the record. Hence, no interference is required. The impugned judgment was properly delivered. The appeal is required to be dismissed by passing following order. : 4 : ORDER . First Appeal is dismissed. There shall not no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)