JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, in Money Appeal No. 1 of 2004, whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 03.07.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharmanagar in Money Suit No. 1 of 2003. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellant and learned G.A., Mr. T. Datta Majumder for the respondents. 2. The second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the trial court or the first appellate court committed illegality by not disposing of an application dated 11.07.2003 filed by the appellant for appointment of Engineer Commissioner to investigate and physically verify the existence of the additional works done? 2. Whether the courts below have committed error by not taking into consideration the provision of Sections 65 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act while adjudicating the dispute? 3. The appellant, as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 1 of 2003 praying for a decree of ` 1,14,435/- (rupees one lakh fourteen thousand four hundred thirty five) with 10% interest thereon till the date of realization, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff was a government contractor and was entrusted the work of "soling, metalling and carpeting of the road from Uptakhali to Jubaraj Nagar via Mangal Khali" under agreement No. 113/EE/ND/2000-2001. The plaintiff successfully completed the work as per the contract. It was in the month of June when the work was completed and in the meantime incessant rain started causing torrential water flow and, as a result the construction work done by the plaintiff was likely to be damaged for which the local people raised voice for protection of the work already done. Pursuant to such demand of the local people the Executive Engineer, i.e. defendant No. 1 directed the plaintiff to perform some extra works of placing some 5000 sand-bags and piling of some posts to protect the road. No formal work order was issued but the plaintiff being a government contractor on the direction of the Executive Engineer, on good faith has done the work, which costs ` 1,14,435/-. The plaintiff demanded the bill for such extra work but the defendants did not make payment of the same and, therefore, he instituted the suit. No formal work order was issued but the plaintiff being a government contractor on the direction of the Executive Engineer, on good faith has done the work, which costs ` 1,14,435/-. The plaintiff demanded the bill for such extra work but the defendants did not make payment of the same and, therefore, he instituted the suit. 4. The respondents(hereinafter mentioned as defendants) contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia stating that no such order for any extra work was given by the Executive Engineer(defendant No. 1) and the plaintiff never performed any such extra work beyond the stipulated work of the agreement and so there was no question of making payment of any amount towards doing of any extra work. 5. The trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties framed three issues, namely-- I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? II. Whether after completion of the work in connection with Job No. TP/COM/98/95-96 any extra item of work was done by the plaintiff during the period May, June, 2001 as per order of the defendants? III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any decree as prayed for? 6. In course of trial, the plaintiff examined five witnesses and also exhibited six items of documents which consist notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., copy of final deviation statement, 11 numbers of photographs, money receipts, copy of agreement No. 113 along with work order. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined and seven items of document which includes the measurement book, piles driving charts, etc. 7. The trial Court decided the material issues, i.e. issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 8. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Money Appeal No. 1 of 2004 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar, and the learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated 18.03.2004, disposed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel, Mr. 8. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Money Appeal No. 1 of 2004 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar, and the learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated 18.03.2004, disposed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas appearing for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff is a government contractor and while he was requested by the Executive Engineer to do the extra work, he was under compulsion to do the work with a view to protect the road already constructed pursuant to the work order and agreement and it was assured by the Executive Engineer that for the extra work, work order will be issued and he will get the payment. The plaintiff, because of the assurance made by the respondents, to protect the road placed 5000 sand-bags and also did piling of nine numbers of wooden posts to protect the road from being washed away. The plaintiff took photographs of the extra works done and those photographs have been exhibited. The defendants most wrongly and arbitrarily did not make payment to the plaintiff for the extra work done by him and, as a result the plaintiff suffered monetary loss for which the plaintiff had no other alternative but to institute the suit. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Biswas that PW 2, the Executive Engineer, who was in-charge of the work at the relevant point of time did not deny the fact that such instruction was given for execution of the extra work. It is to be presumed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the plaintiff executed extra work and, hence the plaintiff is entitled to get the price of extra work. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence on record and arrived at a wrong finding and, therefore this Court is to interfere in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and decree the suit. 10. Learned G.A., Mr. Datta Majumder has submitted that PW 2 was the Executive Engineer, according to the plaintiff, at the relevant point of time when the plaintiff alleged to have executed the extra work. 10. Learned G.A., Mr. Datta Majumder has submitted that PW 2 was the Executive Engineer, according to the plaintiff, at the relevant point of time when the plaintiff alleged to have executed the extra work. PW 2 nowhere stated that he has directed the plaintiff to take up any extra work of putting sand-bags or piling posts in addition to the works already done by him. It is also submitted that measurement book and the final bill was prepared in the month of June, 2001 at the end of the work and at that time plaintiff raised no claim for any extra work alleged to have done by him. The trial Court has observed that the plaintiff placed misleading and distorted facts for illegal gain which is affirmed by the appellate Court. While both the Courts of fact considered the pleadings and evidence on record this Court may not re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a contrary finding. 11. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court arrived at a concurrent finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has done any extra work as claimed by him. According to the plaintiff, he has executed the work as per agreement in full with the deviation works for which measurement was taken in the measurement book and he signed the measurement book. The plaintiff alleged that after the works as per the agreement was over when incessant rain started and local people demanded some protection of the road, the plaintiff was directed by the Executive Engineer to put sand-bags and to do piling of posts, etc. and he on good faith executed the work. In support of his case he has examined PW 2, who was the Executive Engineer, In-charge of the work, at the relevant point of time. PW 2 nowhere stated that he directed the plaintiff to take up any such extra work. According to the plaintiff he has executed the extra work in the month of June and it is an admitted fact that the final measurement book was prepared at the end of June but no such measurement of any extra work was recorded. Burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he has done extra work. In ordinary course, any such extra work would be executed pursuant to a work order issued by the competent authority. Burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he has done extra work. In ordinary course, any such extra work would be executed pursuant to a work order issued by the competent authority. Sometimes it may happen that some extra works are taken up at the request of the departmental authorities but it is the duty of the plaintiff to get it in writing immediately after the work is taken up. The plaintiff since failed to place any documentary evidence on record about extra work, I find nothing wrong in the decision taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 12. The plaintiff filed a petition on 11.07.2003 before the trial Court seeking local inspection by an expert and that petition was disposed of by order dated 24.07.2003 by the learned Civil Judge stating that there was no reason at the very inception to appoint a Commissioner for local inspection and that after recording of the evidence if the plaintiff found it proper the plaintiff may seek for local inspection of the site of work. The trial Court, therefore, rejected the prayer of local inspection observing that the prayer was premature and the plaintiff will be at liberty to press it subsequently at any stage as he may deem fit. There is nothing shown on record that the plaintiff thereafter insisted the Court for local inspection. 13. Further, as I find Sections 65 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act have no manner of application in the facts of the present case. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he has executed any extra work and so the provisions of Sections 65 and 70 cannot be invoked. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the second appeal is found devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. Send back the L.C. records along with the copy of the judgment.