JUDGMENT : Defendants in O.S.No.5 of 2002 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, filed this appeal assailing the decree dated 20.04.2005 in O.S.No.5 of 2002. The sole respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1,03,28,587/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. 2. The respondent is a special class contractor. The appellant invited tenders in the month of December, 1990 for the work of formation of earthen dam for Alaganuru balancing reservoir at Alaganur village, Midthur Mandal of Kurnool District from KM 1.000 to KM 2.000. The respondent emerged as a successful tenderer. An agreement was entered into on 02.12.1991. The value of the work was 1,93,65,579/-. 3. The respondent filed the suit initially claiming a sum of Rs.38,57,505/- under different heads. According to him the appellants were under obligation to handover possession of the site free from encumbrance and on account of their failure to do so he could not start and complete the work within the stipulated period. It was alleged that the process to acquire the land was not completed even by the time the suit was filed and that the farmers in the locality hampered the work, by starting agitation. He pleaded that he kept men and machinery ready ever since he was declared as the highest bidder and incurred house expenditure for it. Another complaint was that the appellants did not arrange for inspection of the site by Geologist. 4. The respondent pleaded that though the delay and default was on the part of the respondents, they have forfeited the EMD as well as the further security deposit and that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was not paid for the works, that were executed. He claimed that substantial extra expenditure was incurred for execution of work, beyond the agreement period. At the subsequent stage the plaint was got amended and an increased amount was claimed. 5. The 4th appellant herein filed the written statement on behalf of all the appellants. The fact that the work was entrusted to the respondent for execution, was admitted. However, the allegation that the site was not handedover or that there was default on the part of the appellants was denied. 5. The 4th appellant herein filed the written statement on behalf of all the appellants. The fact that the work was entrusted to the respondent for execution, was admitted. However, the allegation that the site was not handedover or that there was default on the part of the appellants was denied. According to them, the site was handedover on the date of execution of the agreement i.e., 02.12.1991 itself and when there was no progress on the part of the respondent, a notice dated 21.05.1992 was issued to him. The problems, which were mentioned in the plaint, as constituting hurdle for the work are said to have been already resolved. It was also pleaded that similar work was entrusted to another contractor M/s.Progressive Constructions Limited, Hyderabad, for construction of earthen dam from KM 2.000 to KM 7.500 and was successfully executed the work by maintaining the schedule of progress. They pleaded that the respondent is not entitled to claim any amount and that no extra charges can be paid for the work, once the period of execution is extended. 6. The trial court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.94,00,709/-which included a sum of Rs.78,29,345/- towards extra cost for work done beyond agreement period and Rs.4,00,000/- towards cost of work done but not paid and the interest thereon. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General Submits that the suit filed by the respondent was totally untenable and the claims were made by the respondent, though the default or delay in execution of the work was on his part. It is argued that the fictitious nature of the claim of the respondent is evident from the fact that though Rs.38,57,505/-was claimed towards the extra cost incurred for execution of the work beyond the stipulated time, it was almost doubled through amendment to the plaint. He submits that the relevant clauses in the agreement are clear to the effect that the rates mentioned in the schedule appended to the agreement would bind the parties and under no circumstances the respondent can claim extra cost. It is also his case that clause 26 of the schedule attached to the agreement clearly mentioned that the contractor shall not be eligible for compensation for the delay in execution or for extra rates once the extension of time for the completion of work, is accepted. It is also his case that clause 26 of the schedule attached to the agreement clearly mentioned that the contractor shall not be eligible for compensation for the delay in execution or for extra rates once the extension of time for the completion of work, is accepted. He has also submitted that the trial court has totally ignored the clauses of the agreement contract and passed the decree. 8. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the delay in execution of the work was on account of the failure on the part of the appellants to complete the process of the execution and that the respondent is entitled to the suit amount. He submits that the trial court has taken into account the voluminous oral and documentary evidence on record and passed the decree and that the same does not warrant any interference. 9. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of amount under different heads, against the appellants. Common written statement was filed opposing the suit claim. On the basis of pleadings before it, the trial court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff could not execute the work entrusted by defendants under agreement No.7SE(K)/91-92, dated 2-12-1991 with agreement value of Rs.1,93,65,579/- due to the reasons mentioned in the plaint ? 2. Whether the plaintiff was constrained to stop the work due to excess amount recovered towards selgnlorage, and cess charges ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to current standard schedule rates ? 4. Whether the termination of the contract by the defendants as per Clause 61 of PS to APSS is valid ? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim, with interest thereon at 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization ? 6. To what relief ? Issue No.5 was recasted as follows : 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the amount due to him from 11.09.2000 ? 10. On behalf of the respondent P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and he filed Exs.A-1 to A-115. Substantial portion of the same is in the form of letters exchanged between the parties. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants comprised deposition of D.Ws.1 to 4 and they filed Exs.B-1 to B-36. 10. On behalf of the respondent P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and he filed Exs.A-1 to A-115. Substantial portion of the same is in the form of letters exchanged between the parties. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants comprised deposition of D.Ws.1 to 4 and they filed Exs.B-1 to B-36. The suit was decreed as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. 11. In view of the extensive arguments advanced before us, the points that arise before us are : as to (a) whether the respondent is entitled to claim any amount towards extra cost for the work done beyond the agreement period ? (b) whether the appellants are under obligation to pay any amount for the work already done ? (c) whether the appellants were entitled to forfeit the earnest money and security deposit ? (d) whether the respondent is entitled to claim interest from 11.09.2000 ? 12. It is not in dispute the respondent was entrusted with the work of construction of earthen dam from KM 1.000 to KM 2.000 estimated at Rs.1,93,65,579/- and that the agreement was also entered into on 02.12.1991. The work was required to be completed almost in a period of about one year. However, there was enormous delay on the part of the respondent in commencing the work. He blamed the appellants for that. By 1997 a substantial portion of the work was executed. He filed the suit in the year 2002 with the following claims: Sl.No. Particulars Amount Rs. 1. Extra cost for work done beyond agreement period. 38,57,505-00 2. Cost of work done but not paid. 4,00,000-00 3. Earnest money deposited (Bank Guarantee to be returned to plaintiff) 1,90,000-00 4. Further Security Deposit. 9,92,608-00 5. Interest at 6% p.a. from 11.09.2000. 2,88,756-00 13. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent got amended the plaint, for substitution of the figure under the first heading, to Rs.78,29,345-00. That there was delay in execution of the work, is a matter of record. The main controversy is as to whether the respondent was entitled to pay extra cost for the work done beyond the stipulated time. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent got amended the plaint, for substitution of the figure under the first heading, to Rs.78,29,345-00. That there was delay in execution of the work, is a matter of record. The main controversy is as to whether the respondent was entitled to pay extra cost for the work done beyond the stipulated time. The basis for his claim is that the SSRs (Standard Schedule of Rates) are revised year after year, taking into account the escalation of the prices and once the works are done at a subsequent stage the SSRs that were prevailing at the time of execution of the work must be taken into account. This may appear to be reasonable and logical. 14. The relationship between the parties i.e., the Department and the Contractor are governed by the conditions incorporated in the agreement executed between them. The agreement, which is marked as Ex.A-1 is so comprehensive that it provided for every contingency including the rates that are to be applied for the works that is considered by it and that consequences that ensure, in the event of the work being delayed. In addition to that the nature of the obligations on the respective parties for providing approach roads or use of sites are stated. The clauses that are relevant in this context are 8, 9 and 10 of the conditions of the tender. They read as under : “8. Rates quoted in schedule ‘A’ shall be through rates for finished work in situ and are inclusive of all incidental and contingent charges. All taxes such as sales tax, seigniorage royalties etc, in respect of materials to be used on the work must be borne by the Contractor except in the case of matecials supplied by the Department at specified issue rates, which are inclusive of all such charges. No extra payment on account of the above taxes will be paid to the contractor. 9. The contractor shall at his cost do all the drainage bailing and pumping necessary for carrying out the work including shoring strutting etc. The contractor shall provide at his own cost necessary river diversion works, cofier dams and other protective works contingent on the work. It is the duty of the contractor not only to provide for such works but also maintain them during the course of the work in serviceable and safe condition. The contractor shall provide at his own cost necessary river diversion works, cofier dams and other protective works contingent on the work. It is the duty of the contractor not only to provide for such works but also maintain them during the course of the work in serviceable and safe condition. The department accepts no responsibility for any loss, damage or hindrance caused to the progress of the work or the work itself consequent on the failure of the coffer dams, diversion works or protective works whether it be due to rains, floods in the river or other causes. The rates quoted must be inclusive of all the above charges. 10. The soil particulars and information regarding quarries furnished are only for the guidance of contractor and may show variation. Hence the actual soils met with during execution only shall be paid for and the Executive Engineer’s decision with regard to the classification of soils will be final.” 15. To the same tender notification as well as agreement, the following clauses Nos.25 and 26 are appended : “25. Facilities that are generally provided by the Department a) Food grains :- The contractor should make his own arrangements for procuring food grains for his staff and labour. However, the department will try to assist in getting permission for supply of food grains. b) Roads:- The contractor should make arrangements for the laying & maintaining the haul roads, approach roads other trackways, ramps etc., at his cost where public roads and departmental roads are not available. c) Use of site :- The contractor may be permitted to avail the site at a nominal value of Rs.1.00 (Rupees one only) per acre or part there of per month on lease for use by him in carrying out the contractor work and when the Executive Engineer, considers such use to be necessary for the bonafide purpose for executing works, the contractor shall commence operation of such lands with the prior approval of Executive Engineer. d) Power:- The contractor will make his own arrangements to get the electrical power required by him from A.P.S.E.B. 26. The contractor is not eligible for any compensation for inevitable delay in handing over the site either in full or part. In such case suitable extension of time will be granted after considering the merit of the case.” 16. d) Power:- The contractor will make his own arrangements to get the electrical power required by him from A.P.S.E.B. 26. The contractor is not eligible for any compensation for inevitable delay in handing over the site either in full or part. In such case suitable extension of time will be granted after considering the merit of the case.” 16. From the perusal of these clauses, it is evident that the rates that are mentioned in the tender document, shall apply to the work till it’s completion and that if there is any delay in execution of the work, the contractor shall not be entitled to be paid any extra cost. The alternative facility provided therein is that depending on the circumstances of the case, the period for completion of the contract may be extended. In case the respondent felt that the conditions are not reasonable or that they do not apply, he ought to have claimed the relief of declaration. No such relief was claimed. Once the clauses govern the relationship between the parties, they shall abide by them. 17. Apart from the impact of the clauses, on merits also the respondent is not entitled for the claim. The reason is that except undertaking some correspondence about the so called delay in handing over the site he did not establish the factum of the site being not ready, or the existence of any obstruction. In their detailed written statement, the appellants stated that similar bits of work in relation to the same dam entrusted to the other contractors were executed successfully and no claims were made for extra cost. As against the fixed period of about one year, the respondent took years together and even at the end of it, the work was not fully completed. The delay in completion of the project would have its own impact upon the Government as well as the ayakatdars. The very purpose of undertaking project would be defeated and the farmers would not be able to reap the expected benefits. The point is accordingly answered against the respondent. 18. Coming to the second point, the record discloses that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-remained unpaid for the work that was executed by the respondent. We are not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial court in that behalf. 19. The point is accordingly answered against the respondent. 18. Coming to the second point, the record discloses that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-remained unpaid for the work that was executed by the respondent. We are not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial court in that behalf. 19. As regards to third point, it needs to be observed that though the agreement provides for forfeiture of the EMD and security deposit, once the appellants have chosen to extend the period, the claim of forfeiture cannot be sustained. This point is also answered against the appellants. 20. The last point is about the interest. The payment of interest is mostly a matter of contract. If the agreement does not provide for it, no party to it can claim as a right. Further, it is a different matter that once the court adjudicates the matter, it can consider the feasibility of awarding interest from the date of filing of the suit. Any claim of interest anterior to that must be on the basis of terms of agreement. Hence, we hold that the respondent is not entitled for any interest on the amounts decreed in his favour, for any period anterior to the filing of the suit. 21. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the decree in sofar as it is awarded a sum of Rs.78,29,345-00 towards extra cost for the work executed beyond the stipulated period and the interest claimed by the respondent for the period anterior to the filing of the suit. The decree for a sum of Rs.4,00,000-00 towards the amount that remained unpaid for the work executed and the Earnest Money Deposited is Rs.1,90,000-00 and further security deposit of Rs.9,92,608-00, is sustained. As a result, the decree shall be for a sum of Rs.15,82,608/-and the amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.