JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants-original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 challenging the impugned judgment and order rendered in Special Civil Suit No. 384/1981 by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara dated 20th August, 2002 allowing the suit filed by the respondent No. 1-original plaintiff on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that:- The respondent No. 1-original plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on the business as Contractor. The appellant-original defendant No. 2 invited tenders for the work of construction of new M.I. Tank at Village: Kanjarwat, Taluka: Chhotaudepur. The respondent No. 1-original plaintiff filled in the tenders, which was granted in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 32,97,778.96. The work was to be completed within 24 months and the respondent No. 1-plaintiff firm commenced the work deploying the labourers at the site on 19.06.1979. However after the work was commenced, local tribal people of Village: Kajarvat started agitation leading to the stoppage of work, due to such agitation, the respondent No. 1-plaintiff had to get help of the police. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for the bills for Rs. 1,29,300/- for the work carried out and the expenses incurred during the work. The plaintiff also claimed loss of profit as provided in the contract at 15% of the contract value. 3. Heard learned advocate, Shri Munshaw for the appellants and learned advocate, Shri Majmudar for the respondent No. 1. 4. Learned advocate, Shri Munshaw referred to the papers and tried to submit that as discussed in the impugned judgment in paragraph No. 9, the vouchers for the expenditure were not proved or established, which has not been appreciated by the Court below. He submitted that there is no material placed on record as to how the amount of expenditure is arrived at. Learned advocate, Shri Munshaw therefore submitted that the appellant has disputed these vouchers and no amount could have been awarded. 5. Learned advocate, Shri Munshaw also submitted that though loss of profit is claimed, it could not have been awarded as there is no specific details with regard to actual loss suffered by the original plaintiff. He submitted that loss has to be proved and established by the plaintiff that he had suffered the loss of earning. 5. Learned advocate, Shri Munshaw also submitted that though loss of profit is claimed, it could not have been awarded as there is no specific details with regard to actual loss suffered by the original plaintiff. He submitted that loss has to be proved and established by the plaintiff that he had suffered the loss of earning. Learned advocate, Shri Munshaw submitted that there is no evidence brought on record and, therefore, the Court below has committed an error in allowing the damages for such loss of profit. 6. Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar referred to the impugned judgment and also clause - 15 of the tender agreement/contract. He submitted that as provided by this clause, notice was required to be given and admittedly no notice has been served for restarting of the work or the agitation of the tribal. He submitted that admittedly the work was required to be stopped due to agitation of the tribal people and the police help was required to be taken. Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar submitted that as discussed, in fact, the Chairman of the Panchayat has conveyed meeting and resolution was passed for stoppage of the work. He therefore submitted that the respondent No. 1-original plaintiff cannot be blamed for any such work as he was always ready and willing and in fact, the work was commenced. Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar submitted that after the agitation was over, he was never called upon to perform the work and without any procedure, the work was got done by the Panchayat resulting in loss to the plaintiff. He submitted that Clause - 15 of the agreement and other provide for the damages @ 15%. He pointedly referred to Clause - 15 providing that, "................. if the Contractor suffers any loss on account of his having to pay labour charges during the period during which the stoppage of work has been ordered under this clause, the contract shall on application, be entitled to such compensation on account of the labour charges as the Engineer-in-charge, whose decision shall be final, may consider reasonable. Provided that the Contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation on account of the labour charges, if in the opinion of the Engineer-in-charge, the labour could have been employed by the Contractor elsewhere for the whole or part of the period during which the stoppage of the work has been ordered as aforesaid." 7. Provided that the Contractor shall not be entitled to any compensation on account of the labour charges, if in the opinion of the Engineer-in-charge, the labour could have been employed by the Contractor elsewhere for the whole or part of the period during which the stoppage of the work has been ordered as aforesaid." 7. Learned advocate, Shri Majmudar submitted that there is nothing brought on record by other side that the labourers could have been employed by the respondent No. 1-original plaintiff. He submitted that in fact, as the work was to be carried out within stipulated time, the plaintiff had commenced the work also, which is not in dispute. He therefore submitted that when no notice was given and even after the agitation was over, no opportunity was given by calling upon the respondent No. 1-plaintiff to proceed further with the work, the plaintiff has suffered damage, for which, damages are awarded as per Clause - 15 of the contract. He therefore submitted that the present appeal may not be allowed. 8. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeal deserves consideration. 9. As it transpires from the material and evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the contract was awarded to the respondent No. 1-original plaintiff firm. After the work was awarded, the original plaintiff had also commenced the work and deployed the labourers. However due to tribal agitation, the work was stopped as per the resolution and the instruction of the appellant-Panchayat. It is also not in dispute that due to such agitation, the help of Police was required to be taken and the work was disrupted. Admittedly no notice has been served to the plaintiff for not carrying out the work. In fact, the plaintiff was not summoned to carry out the work and the work was got completed by the Panchayat. 10. Therefore as the plaintiff was ready and willing to start the work and in fact, had commenced the work, suggest about his willingness for the work and part performance of the contract. The relevant Clause - 15 of the contract as referred to by learned advocate, Shri Majmudar refers to the payment of the damages in case of stoppage of work. Admittedly, the work was stopped, for which, the plaintiff cannot be held responsible. The relevant Clause - 15 of the contract as referred to by learned advocate, Shri Majmudar refers to the payment of the damages in case of stoppage of work. Admittedly, the work was stopped, for which, the plaintiff cannot be held responsible. Assuming that it was due to agitation, where no fault could be found on the either side, at-least notice and the opportunity could have been given to the respondent No. 1-plaintiff firm to complete the work after some time, there is nothing on record. Therefore as Clause - 15 provides for the payment of the damages of 15% of the contract value, the Court has awarded the amount. The deposition of Deputy Executive Engineer, Shri Rumalbhai Katara at Exh. 147 clearly refers to this aspect on compensation and he has stated that 15% of the profit of the contract is considered on the basis of the total value of the contract. In fact, the observations have been made that the Engineer Incharge has not given notice and the Panchayat failed to perform obligation of giving notice in writing. It it is in this background, the suit filed by the respondent No. 1-original plaintiff firm has been allowed, which cannot be said to be erroneous. Clause - 15 of the contract r/w deposition of Deputy Executive Engineer at Exh. 147 clearly provides for the aspect of compensation and, therefore, the findings are just and proper. 11. Thus in view of these rival submissions and having regard to the material and evidence and the background of the facts, the present appeal filed by the appellants-Panchayat (original defendant Nos. 2 to 4) cannot be entertained as this Court is in broad agreement with the findings and conclusion arrived at. 12. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.