TARIQ JAVAID, J.---This appeal is directed against the order, dated 29-9-2009 whereby a temporary injunction was refused.
2. The appellant filed the suit and assailed letter No,608 dated 17-4-2007 issued by the respondent No,3 whereby a A contract dated 11-12-2006 was rescinded and security deposited by the appellant was fortified. The perusal of letter, dated 17-4-2009 reveals that the respondent No,3 was of the opinion that the appellant was not executing the work in accordance with the contract and neglected to carry out his obligations. Therefore, contract awarded to him vide contract No,359/DDP&D/WASA dated 11-12-2006 was rescinded and the security deposited was fortified.
3. It is maintained by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondents themselves came to the conclusion that rates regarding shuttering had already been accelerated and in the opinion of the respondents the appellant was entitled for the price escalation. It was suggested vide B letter dated 12-12-2008 that the balance amount of said contract rates for shuttering be enhanced and the contract be given to some other contractor.
4. Since the appellant himself in letter dated 12-12-2008 admits that the rates had enhanced due to no fault of the appellant and if they were willing to award the contract to some other contractor instead of the appellant at enhanced rates then it is highly inequitable that the appellant, who has executed the works and had made huge investment should be deprived from the enhanced rates, which are admittedly not a consequence of any failure on the part of the contractor. Admittedly, the rates have been increased due to the market conditions over which the appellant has no control.
5. In this view of the matter, this F.A.O. Is allowed. The respondents are directed to award the contract as per enhanced rates given in statement showing difference in second revised estimate for replacement of trunk sewer from Manzoor D Abad Chowk to Chungi No,9 via Jamal Pura Chowk.
This position is also admitted by the respondents in their written statement filed before the learned trial Court in para No,8. It was maintained that in a meeting held on 3-3-2009 the Secretary come to the conclusion "that the contractor may be directed to fulfil contractual obligation i.e, he should execute the work up to the agreemental amount, plus 20% above agreement. In case he fails to carry out up to the agreement amount, work may be rescinded under the clause of the agreement and the balance work realloted after updating the rates if required". It is difficult to comprehend that while it is admitted by the respondents that the rates have been increased due to the market conditions and they are willing to pay the same to some other contractors then why the appellant should not be paid the same. The suit of the appellant is decreed and the respondents are directed to pay the rates 20% above the contract agreement with regard to the wood shuttering as alleged in the appeal.