' This appeal under section 96, C.P.C. Is filed by the Province of Sind, against the judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge, Dadu in P.C. Suit No,91 of 1978 instituted by respondent against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs, 3,23,429 with costs and interest.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent was awarded a contract for construction of a road from Piarogoth Railway Station to Indus Highway. The work was completed by the respondent on 15-2-1977 and there were certain extra items of work which were executed by the respondent during progress of the work for which he made a claim to the appellant. In so far the extra items of work claimed by the respondent are concerned it is admitted by the appellant that extra items of work was executed by the respondent during execution of the contract but the rate at which the claim was made by the respondent was not admitted. It may be mentioned here that the respondent had claimed higher rate on account of the change of querry which was originally mentioned in the contract but the claim was not admitted by the appellant. It is an admitted position that the contract was awarded at 81% above the schedule rate and in respect of the extra work executed by the appellant he demanded at the rate of 100% above the schedule rate in respect of the extra work which was within the contemplation of the work and at the rate of 145.13% above the schedule rate in respect of those items of extra work which were out side the scope of contract. In so far the claim with regard to extra work which was within the contemplation of the contract the claim was amended by the plaintiff after institution of the suit and it was brought down to 81% above schedule rate and, therefore, that is not the subject-matter of dispute in this appeal. However, in respect of extra items of work executed by the respondent which were outside the scope of the contract the claim was maintained before the Court at the rate of 145.13% above the schedule rate. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent by the trial Court on the basis of the recommendations made by the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer. The defence taken by the appellant in the written statement in suit was that as the recommendations of Executive Engineer for payment of extra items of work to the respondent at the rate of 145.13% above schedule rate , was not yet accepted/sanctioned by the relevant authorities, therefore, the suit was pre-mature in respect of those claims. The work was completed as late as 15-2-1977 and the recommendation was made in this regard by the Executive Engineer for payment to the respondent in respect of the extra items of work at 145.13% above schedule rate near about the same time. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 16-7-1978 while the evidence in the case was recorded in the year 1979. In spite of the fact that a considerable period had passed between completion of work and recording of evidence in the suit there is nothing on record to show that the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer for payment to the respondent in respect of extra items of work at the rate of 145.13% above the schedule rate was declined by the authorities concerned. Even today learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to make statement that the Authorities have declined to accept the recommendation of the Executive Engineer with regard to payment of the extra work to respondent at the rate of 145.13% above the schedule rate.
In these circumstances the material available record supports the contention of the plaintiff/respondent' that he was entitled to the payment in respect of extra items of work outside the scope of the contract at the rate of 145.13% over the schedule rate and that this claim of the respondent/plaintiff was no disputed by the Department at any time. I am, therefore, quite satisfies that the judgment of the trial Court in so far it awarded the costs of extra items of work to the respondent at the rate of 145.13% above the schedule rate was quite in accord with evidence on record. Mr. A.R. Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold contention before me.
It is firstly contended by the learned counsel that in pare graph 15-A of the plaint the appellant has claimed interest which could not be allowed to him. After going through the judgment of the trial Court I find that under issue No,12 where the specific amount has been awarded to the plaintiff/respondent the trial Court has not awarder any interest preceding the institution of the suit. The total amount awarded under issue No,12 by the trial Court comes to Rs,2,77,990.7 while the amount actually claimed by the plaintiff excluding the interest mentioned in para 15-A of the plaint comes to Rs,2,79,000. I, therefore, find no justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court could not have awarded any interest on the amount preceding the date of the suit. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that in so far the security deposit is concerned the Court could not have allowed any interest on the aforesaid amount. This argument is equally not justified as in the judgment and decree of the trial Court it is only ordered that amount of Rs,1,24,179 deposited by the respondent/plaintiff in his own name as security deposit be refunded to him. There is no decree in so far the interest on the sum of Rs,1,24,179 is against the appellant. It is not disputed that the amount was deposited by the respondent/plaintiff with Muslim Commercial Bank Limited as security deposit and if it carried any interest it was rightly awarded to plaintiff/ respondent as the respondent has nothing to do with that amount. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the judgment and decree has been properly passed by the trial Court and no case for interference is made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.