ORDER D. M. Dharmadhikari, J. :- This revision by the contractor under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has been preferred against the award of the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal dated 19th October, 1988. 2. The petitioner-contractor was awarded construction work for Panabaras Tank in Rajnandgaon district. Five extensions were granted to him; but the work was not completed. The contract was, therefore, rescinded on 27.7.1983. 3. The contractor filed a claim before the Tribunal alleging breaches on the part of the respondents representing the Irrigation Department of the State. The Tribunal rejected all the claims excepting the award in the sum of Rs. 33,102/- towards the pending bills for the work done, in the sum of Rs. 15,587/- as refund of security deposit and Rs. 3,500/- as return of the earnest money. The respondent department in terms of clause 4.3.3.3 of the contract debited from the dues payable to the contractor the amount spent as extra expenditure for getting the balance work done through another contractor. The tribunal upheld the action of the department in debiting the said amount incurred as extra expenditure for getting the balance work done in terms of clause 4.3.3.3 : but reduced it by 25% because there was some delay on the part of the department in re-tendering the work to the new contractor. The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the action of the department debiting extra expenditure under clause 4.3.3.3 in the sum of Rs. 47,471.25 p. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly attacked the decision of the Tribunal in upholding the action of the department of debiting the sum of Rs. 47,471.25 as extra expenditure incurred for getting the work done through the new contractor under clause 4.3.3.3 of the contract. The first contention advanced on behalf of the contractor is that the aforesaid amount could have been allowed to be debited as it was in the nature of a counter claim, which needed adjudication through the Superintending Engineer as an appellant authority under the contract or through the Tribunal on payment of court-fee in the Tribunal. 5. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry ( AIR 1974 SC 1265 ) and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwara Rice Mills ( AIR 1987 SC 1359 ) Thirthahali. 6. The second contention advanced based on the chart (Ex. 5. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry ( AIR 1974 SC 1265 ) and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwara Rice Mills ( AIR 1987 SC 1359 ) Thirthahali. 6. The second contention advanced based on the chart (Ex. D. 21) filed by the department before the Tribunal showing item-wise the amount of balance work of the contractor and that was executed by the new contractor. On a reading from various items in the chart, an attempt was made to show that some extra work not initially allotted to the contractor was also allowed to be carried out by the new contractor and it is contended that the said extra expenditure on those items could not be debited to the applicant's account. 7. Lastly a feeble attempt was made to contend that repeated extensions of time to the contractor had to be granted because of the lapses and defaults on the part of the department. 8. The learned Government advocate, appearing for the respondents, supported the award of the Tribunal and contended that the said clause 4.3.3.3 of the contract permitted the department to get the unfinished work done through the new agency and charge the contractor for the extra expenditure. It was not a counter-claim of the department. It was also submitted that there was no question of preferring an appeal to the Suprintending Engineer under the terms of the contract as the right was exercised by the department, under the aforesaid clause. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and considering the contentions advanced, in our opinion, there is no merit in this revision. Clause 4.3.3.3 on which the department got the balance work done through another agency and debited the extra expenditure to the contractor's account, reads as under : "4.3.3.3. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and considering the contentions advanced, in our opinion, there is no merit in this revision. Clause 4.3.3.3 on which the department got the balance work done through another agency and debited the extra expenditure to the contractor's account, reads as under : "4.3.3.3. To measure up the work of contractor and to take such part thereof as shall be unexecuted out of his hands and to give it to another contractor to complete in which case any expense which may be incurred in excess of the sum which would have been paid to the original contractor if the whole work had been executed by him (of the amount of which excess the certificate in writing of the Divisional Officer shall be final and conclusive) shall be borne as paid by the original contractor and may be deducted from any money due to him by Government under the contract or otherwise, or from his security deposits or the proceeds of the sale thereof or a sufficient part thereof. If the work is carried out at lower rate as the contractor shall not be entitled for any refund on this account saving, if any, shall go to the Government. In the event of the above courses being adopted by the Divisional Officers, the contractor shall have no claim as to compensation for any loss sustained by him by reason of having purchased or procured any materials or entered into engagements or made any advances on account of or with a view to the execution of the work or the performance of the contract and in case the contract shall be rescinded under the provisions aforesaid the contractor shall not be entitled to recover or be paid any sum for any work thereto for actually to be performed under this contract, unless and until, the Sub-Divisional/Divisional Officer will have certified in writing the performance of such work and the value payable in respect thereof and shall only be entitled to be paid the value so certified." Under the above terms of contracts, the department was fully within its power to get the unfinished work done and charge the contractor for extra expenditure. The contractor in his statement of claim in paragraph 5.4 has challenged the action of the department taken under clause 4.3.3.3 and the department in its reply supported the said action. The contractor in his statement of claim in paragraph 5.4 has challenged the action of the department taken under clause 4.3.3.3 and the department in its reply supported the said action. The extra expenditure debited by the department under clause 4.3.3.3 was not thus in the nature of an any counter-claim requiring its adjudication on payment of court-fee. The argument advanced on behalf of the contractor is, therefore, misconceived and is rejected. 10. So far as the above contention advanced on the basis of the chart showing extra expenditure incurred by the department, exhibited as D-21 is concerned, we find that the plea that the contractor was wrongly charged for some additional or extra work done by debitable agency under clause 4.3.3.3 was neither expressly taken in the statement of claim, nor in the evidence led by the contractor. We have gone through the statement of claim as also the testimony of one witness each examined by the contractor and the department and we no - where find that any evidence was led or objection was raised for debiting the contractor for certain items in chart Ex. D-21 which are said to be additional or extra work done by the new contractor. Such a plea was purely of fact and could have been pleaded and proved before the Tribunal. In our revisional jurisdiction, we cannot allow such a plea of fact to be raised for the first time in this revision. So far as question of alleged breaches committed by the department is concerned, the Tribunal has rejected the case of the contractor that the delay in completion of the contract was due to any fault on the part of the department. That finding is unassailable before us. 11. Consequently we find no merit in this revision. The revision is dismissed but without any order as to costs.