K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) R. F. A. No. 14/1978 is filed by the plaintiff and R. F. A. No. 48/1976 is filed by the defendants. In this judgment, the parties will be referred to with reference to the position assigned to them in the trial court. As both the appeals arise out of the same suit, they are disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) O. S. No. 94/1972 was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,409-06 being the amount due towards the work contract entrusted to it under ex. P. 10. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants illegally terminated the contract and illegally forfeited the earnest money deposit and also failed to pay the amount towards the work done under the contract Ex. P. 10. Therefore, under all the heads together, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for recovery of the aforesaid sum. ( 3 ) THE defendants disputed the claim made by the plaintiff and contended that the contract was terminated in accordance with the provisions contained therein ; that the plaintiff failed to perform the contract within the time stipulated in the contract ; therefore the work was got done through the department and as well as by the other contractor. The defendants even claimed certain sums by way of set-off. The defendants further pleaded that after setting off the amounts due by the plaintiff to the defendants only a sum of Rs. 5068-80 was due to the plaintiff. They also set up a plea that the suit was barred by time. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues numbering 18. It is not necessary to reproduce them. ( 5 ) AMONG other things, the trial court has held that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and it is properly described in the plaint. Hence the suit, as brought, is maintainable. It has also held that the time was not of the essence of the contract and it lapsed when extra work was entrusted to the plaintiff that the execution of the work was delayed due to floods ; that the woek done by the plaintiff was not contrary to specifications that the contract was not validly terminated that the defendants were not entitled to claim Rs. 924-30 by way of set-off that the defendants failed to prove that they were entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposit of the plaintiff on account of the default committed by it , that the suit was not barred by time. On the whole, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 19,942-47, the details of which are as follows :