( 1 ) NO one appears for the appellant despite the matter being called on. With the help of Mr. Sarkar, appearing for the respondent, we heard this matter. ( 2 ) THE appellant preferred this appeal against the money decree passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. The learned judge has decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,28,613 /- in aggregate. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that there was a concluded contract for execution of certain civil works viz. laying of water lines at an aggregate contractual price of Rs. 7 Lacs and odd. In terms of the contract, the plaintiff deposited the earnest money which was treated to be security deposit for execution of the contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite all things done by it, the defendants failed and neglected to supply the drawings and designs and the plaintiff also faced other difficulties from the local area and as such the work could not be commenced within the time stipulated. ( 3 ) THE story of the defendants/appellants is otherwise. It is contended that there was negligence and failure on the part of the plaintiff to start the work as a result whereof the agreement was terminated and the earnest money deposited was forfeited. ( 4 ) IN the aforesaid background, the learned Trial Judge has framed the following issues: 1]. Was the plaintiff ready and willing to execute the work? 2]. Did the plaintiff ask the defendant to issue working drawing and cement to start work? 3]. Did the defendant fail and neglect to issue working drawing? 4]. Was the plaintiff restrained from starting work? 5]. Did the defendant fail to co-operate the plaintiff to start the work as asked for? 6]. Whether the notice under clause 3 (a) was valid under the facts and circumstances of the case? 7]. Have the defendants committed any breach of the terms of the contract? 8]. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,36,603 /- and Rs. 46,614/ -. ( 5 ) WE have gone through the evidence as well as the pleadings of both the parties. 7]. Have the defendants committed any breach of the terms of the contract? 8]. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,36,603 /- and Rs. 46,614/ -. ( 5 ) WE have gone through the evidence as well as the pleadings of both the parties. The learned Judge upon analysis of evidence found that termination of the agreement was not justified as it was found that the drawings and designs were not supplied and as such, the plaintiff/respondent was prevented from commencing the work, as a result whereof the termination of the contract was held to be illegal. Automatically, the plaintiff was granted reliefs, almost as prayed for. ( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. Sarkar and we have examined carefully the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Judge. We do not find any reason to upset the findings of the learned Judge. Findings of the fact, relating to the breach of the contract are quite reasonable and justified and backed by evidence. However, the reliefs granted by the learned Judge cannot be acceded to by us, except the relief for refund of the security deposit together with interest. ( 7 ) WE do not find any basis for awarding damages. How the amount has been quantified is not spelt out. There is simply no evidence and no basis for such quantification. Mr. Sarkar has relied upon a large number of decisions in support of his submission that while quantifying the damages in a case of such nature, it is permissible that the Court can do some guesswork. ( 8 ) WE are afraid that we cannot accept such submission. According to us, there must be some evidence as to the basis of quantification. There is no evidence excepting the sweeping statement that the plaintiff had suffered damages, as started in the plaint. At least some material should have been placed before the learned Court below. In that view of the matter, we modify the decree affirming the refund of security deposit, together with interest. ( 9 ) SO far the decree for damages is concerned, the same is set aside. However, we remand this matter for fresh hearing on quantification of the damages upon evidence to be adduced by the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, we modify the decree affirming the refund of security deposit, together with interest. ( 9 ) SO far the decree for damages is concerned, the same is set aside. However, we remand this matter for fresh hearing on quantification of the damages upon evidence to be adduced by the plaintiff. We think that if the matter is not remanded back then gross injustice would be meted out as the learned Trial Judge ought to have asked the plaintiff to prove damages with material evidence. Therefore, we give a chance to the plaintiff to prove the same before the learned Trial Judge afresh. Except to the extent above, the decree is affirmed. However, on remand, the learned Trial Judge will decide this issue of quantification of damages within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. ( 10 ) IF any amount is deposited, then the respondent/plaintiff will be entitled to withdraw the amount of security deposit together with interest, as awarded by the learned Trial Judge and the balance amount shall be returned to the appellant after deducting all usual charges and commissions, if any. ( 11 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. Matter remanded back.