Judgment Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.-By this appeal, the plaintiff seeks to assail the Judgment and decree dated 20.08.1981 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 30/1976 whereby the claim for the recovery of money against the defendant-respondents was partly disallowed. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that a tender was approved in favour of the plaintiff Vasudev Prasad Verma to electrify on the eve of cattle fare at Bharatpur which was scheduled to be held in the month of October, 1972. Thereafter, as per contract order, the plaintiff completed the work on 110.1972 and submitted a bill of Rs. 4,990/-to the Animal Husbandry Officer. After commencement of the fare, arrangement of more lightening and decoration was ordered on 110.1972, which was complied with by the plaintiff-appellant and a bill of Rs. 18,797.50 was submitted to the Director, Animal Husbandry Department on 06.02.1973. It is also averred in the plaint that fare and exhibition was extended for four days from 210.1972 and as per the terms and conditions of the contract for the extended period the plaintiff was entitled to get Rs. 1,000/-per day. Therefore, after deducting the advance money of Rs. 3,995/-a total sum of Rs. 23,792.50 was claimed alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 3. The Defendant-respondents No. 1 and 2 filed the written statement stating therein that contract was for fifteen days while the plaintiff only arranged the light and decoration in the cattle fair for fourteen days from 110.1972 to 210.1972. The defendants also denied about the excess claim made by the plaintiff . 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : Þ1- D;k oknh }kjk okn i= ds layXu lwph ^v* esa of.kZr vfrfjDr dk;Z fd;k x;k rFkk mldks vfrfjDr /kujkf'k o jdesa eqrkfcd en la[;k 10 o 11 okn i= izfroknh ls ikus dk gdnkj gS \ 2-D;k oknh C;kt eqrkfcd en la- 12 okn i= ikus dk vf /kdkj gS\ 3- D;k uksfVl /kkjk 80] tk-nh- dkuwuh ugha gS\ 4- D;k oknh ,oa izfroknh ds chp 15 fnu rd fctyh dh ltkoV djus dk vuqcU/k Fkk rFkk pwafd oknh us 14 fnu gh dk;Z fd;k] vr% izfroknh ,d fnu ds 1]000@& : oknh dks ns; jde esa ls dkVus dk gdnkj gks x;k\ 5- nknjlh \ß 5. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, learned trial Court decided Issues No. 4 in favour of the respondents. Issue No. 3 was decided against the defendants and Issue No. 1 and 2 were partly decided in favour of the plaintiff . 6. None present for respondents even in second round. Heard learned Counsel for appellant. Learned Counsel for appellant contended that initially cattle fare and exhibition was organized by the Animal Husbandry Department from 110.1972 to 210.1972 which is evident from Exhibit 1 Smarika published by the Government and for this period only a contract was assigned to the plaintiff-appellant for lightening and decoration in the fare but duration of the fare was extended upto 210.1972 which is also evident from the document Exhibit 8. It is also contended that as per the contract clause the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to get Rs. 1,000/-per day for the extended period, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant rightly claimed and proved his claim of Rs. 4,000/-for the extended period i.e. 210.1972 to 210.1972. It is also contended that learned trial Court could not appreciate the uncontroverted evidence properly and denied the payment of excess decoration and lightening of 17,000 bulbs on the ground that there is variance in the statement of the plaintiff and the Schedule 1 which is virtually a typing error and was corrected in Schedule A-1. 7. I have considered the above submissions. It is not disputed that tender was invited for the decoration and lightening in the cattle fare and Jaswant exhibition organized by the Animal Husbandry Department in the month of October, 1972. It is also not disputed that tender was invited for the approximate period of fifteen days. It is an admitted case that festival was organized from 110.1972 to 210.1972 i.e. for 14 days. Therefore, merely on the ground that initially the fare was organized for a period of ten days i.e. 110.1972 to 210.1972, it cannot be said that tender was invited and accepted only for that period and for the rest of the period the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to get extra amount. In my considered view, learned trial Court weighed the evidence and rightly decided this point which does not require any interference by this Court. 8. In my considered view, learned trial Court weighed the evidence and rightly decided this point which does not require any interference by this Court. 8. So far payment for excess lightening and decoration is concerned, learned trial Court has partly allowed the claim of the plaintiff but denied the payment for the decoration of 17,000 bulbs as claimed by the plaintiff on account of variance in the pleading and proof . I find no illegality or perversity in regard to this finding of the trial Court. No other point has been raised by Counsel for appellant. 9. In view of the entire discussion made hereinabove, I find no force in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed accordingly.