AS No. 339 of 1993 · Kerala High Court

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JAMES MATHEW KADAVATH RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------- P.T. SATHYANARAYANAN, S/O. LATE. P.T. APPUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING CHELAVOOR AMSOM/ DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH THOMAS THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS.No. 339 of 1993 (D) APPENDIX APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS EXHIBITS: NIL RESPONDENT'S/PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS: EXT. A14: PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERAL AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, TRIVANDRUM //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K.Vinod Chandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.339 of 1993-G & I.A.No.1106 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of July, 2012. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Judgment

The State is in appeal against the decree passed by the court below allowing the plaintiff, a contractor to recover an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- towards 50% increase over and above the quoted rate for a civil contract work. The work, going by the original term, ought to have been completed by 1.8.1986. The work was completed only in June, 2008. Even going by the testimony of D.W.1, the witness on behalf of the Government, the liability allegedly due from the plaintiff for another work was not ascertained and the Department essentially conceded even in AS339/93 -: 2 :- its written statement to the effect that there was a long drawn labour problem in which even the State is stated to have intervened. The delay in the work, as noted by the court below on the basis of Ext.B2 file, is not exclusively due to any fault that could be mulcted on the plaintiff. The officers had recommended extension of time and such extension was granted without imposing any fine or penalty after having been satisfied with the recommendations to grant such extension. The road work was over and ultimately, the plaintiff was compelled to move for relief. Having noticed the aforesaid facts, the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses Pws 1 and 2 and the evidence of D.W.1 on behalf of the State only probabilise the case of the plaintiff. The documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A13, including the supplemental agreements, clearly show that the decree impugned does not call for any interference.

I.A.No.1106 of 2006 is filed invoking Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking admission of additional evidence. The petitioner says that at one stage, AS339/93 -: 3 :- when this appeal was considered by this Court, there was a suggestion that it could be found out whether there is any document to show that there was a revision in PWD schedule of rates in 1986. The respondent in the appeal has accordingly filed this I.A. producing therewith the proceedings of the Chief Engineer, General and National Highways, Trivandrum pertaining to revision of schedule of rates of PWD dated 26.8.1986. We are of the view that sufficient ground has been shown for admission of additional evidence and that the material now placed on record along with this I.A. is necessary for a proper and just disposal of the contentions in the appeal. We accordingly allow I.A.No.1106 of 2006; admit the document produced therewith as additional evidence and order marking of that as Ext.A14 following the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff.