ORDER P. N. S. Chouhan, J. - Vide contract No. IDL of XI/1977-78 dated 5.4.1977 the respondent was awarded contract for construction of Tilak college, Katni. The tender estimate of work was Rs. 6,41,128.00. The contract was awarded on rates 43.72% above C.S.R. Thus the contract value of work became Rs. 9,21,42900/-. The work order was issued on 5.4.1977. Period of contract was twenty-four months including rainy season. Thus, the stipulated date of completion of work was 4.4.1979. Originally the building was designed on open foundation. After excavation the presence of while clay necessitated change of design to RCC framed structure. Ex. P. 20-1 to D. 20-10 show that drawings of plinth beams and details of columns as per the changed design were finalised on 12.1.1979. Drawings of stair case and details of beams with RCC details thereof were finalised on 1.4.1979 vide Ex. D. 21-1 to D. 21-9. Thus finalisation of drawings took nearly twenty-one months whereas the period of the work itself was twenty months. After such finalisation of drawings and designs within remaining three months the petitioner completed about 33% of the work valued at Rs. 3,28,583.00. In the meantime prices of building material shot up due to Government's policy decision. The petitioner applied for upward revised of his rates by 100% above CSR. He also sought extension vide Ex. D. 3 dated 6.7.1978. Contractor's version is that this extension was never intimated to him whereas the State claims that time was extended till 5.10.1980. So that as it may. On 7.10.1979 the contractor abandoned the work. Fresh tenders were invited for the remaining work which was completed by another contractor on rates 80% above new CSR which had come in force on 1.1.1980. The work was ultimately completed on 18.10.1982. After abandoning the work the respondent laid claim for recovery of Rs. 2,66,954.00 under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter the Act). The State refuted the contractor's allegation of breach of agreement on its part and put forth a counter claim of Rs. 2,62,939.10 paise. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 4.11.1988 passed in Reference case No. 19 of 1986 held that the delayed furnishing of revised drawings and designs by the department was the reason for non-completion of the work within the stipulated time. Thus, the department was held guilty of breaches of the agreement. 2,62,939.10 paise. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 4.11.1988 passed in Reference case No. 19 of 1986 held that the delayed furnishing of revised drawings and designs by the department was the reason for non-completion of the work within the stipulated time. Thus, the department was held guilty of breaches of the agreement. It was also held that the abandonment of the work by the contractor, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not liable to be faulted notwithstanding contractor's application for extension Ex. D. 3 dated 6.7.1978. The contractor was found entitled to recover Rs. 1,46,870.00 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the reference till realisation. State's counter claim was allowed to the extent of Rs. 14,730.00 with interest as aforesaid. 2. In this revision filed by the State under Section 19 of the Act the said awarded is assailed on a number of grounds. In fact almost all the issues decided by the learned Tribunal have been challenged till 5.10.1980 vide order dated 4.9.1979 (Ex. D. 14). Since this extension was granted on the application of the contractor and the contractor continued to work even after expiry of the initial stipulated period for completion there was no justification whatsoever for the contractor to have abandoned the work on 7.10.1979. The finding of the learned Tribunal the notwithstanding such abandonment no liability could fastened on the contractor is patently erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 3. Perusal of the award shows that department's assertion that the period of the contract was extended and duly intimated to the contractor could not be substantiated. The learned Tribunal has found on facts, and rightly in our opinion, that the alleged extension of time was never communicated to the contractor. In such circumstances the Tribunal argued that the contractor was not obliged to have continued with the work when the department had failed to communicated to him the decision on the contractors prayer for upward revision of rates and extension of time. In result the abandonment of the work was to be justified. We are unable to see any infirmity in this conclusion. 4. In result the abandonment of the work was to be justified. We are unable to see any infirmity in this conclusion. 4. As for the finding on Issue No. 1 "was the petitioner prevented from completing the work within the stipulated period because of the respondent's not finalising the drawings of RCC frame structure early and shooting up of building material prices abruptly rendering completion of the work on the old rates impossible", is concerned, no arguments could be advanced on behalf of the petitioner State. We have gone through the reasoning of the learned Tribunal in this behalf and are satisfied that the finding on this issue in contractor's favour was perfectly justified. 5. No other point was argued. 6. In result this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision dismissed.