ORDER : T.P. Sharma, Chairman By this reference petition under Section 7-A of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short the Adhiniyam, 1983) petitioner has claimed total Rs. 11,00,000/- towards the non-payment of Rs. 3,90,000/-, cost of damage of cement of Rs. 43,500/, cost on account of damage of rod of Rs. 40,500/- shifting charges of material of Rs. 15,000/-, establishment cost of Rs. 2,75,000/-, loss of profit of Rs. 2,70,000/- and escalation price of Rs. 66,000/-. 2. Agreement for construction of Cultural Building at Baradwar, execution of an agreement on 20/10/2009 vide Ex.-P5, issuance of work order Ex.-P4 vide order dated 21/10/2009. Change of place from Ward No. 02 to Ward No. 12. Payment of some amount through running bills and non-completion of work are not substantially disputed. 3. As per reference petition, petitioner entered into an agreement vide Ex.-P5 dated 20/10/2009 for construction of Cultural Building at Baradwar with respondents. Work order dated 21/10/2009 vide Ex.- P4 was issued. Cost of construction was Rs. 20,42,378/- and time for construction was 6 months. 4. As per agreement petitioner was required to construct the Cultural Building at Ward No. 02 but after some initial work at the instance of respondents place of construction of building was shifted from Ward No. 02 to Ward No. 12. Only layout for construction was provided by the respondents even after several demands respondents had failed to provide the drawings and designs for construction of building. Asma Marketing Pvt. Ltd. had provided drawing an design for the place situated at Ward No. 02. It was not suitable for the place situated at Ward No. 12. Finally on 23/03/2011 respondents informed the petitioner that, they have received the drawings and designs but, it was not related to the place situated at Ward No. 12. Several correspondents were made between parties. Finally, drawings and designs were not provided to the petitioner. In absence of drawings and designs petitioner was not able to execute the work. Material kept on the site was substantially damaged. Finally, on account of inability to execute the work petitioner raised his grievance before competent authority and thereafter filed this petition for recovery of unpaid amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- cost of cement damaged Rs. 43,500/-, cost on account of damage of rod of Rs. 40,500/-, shifting charges of material of Rs. 15,000/-, establishment cost of Rs. 3,25,000/-, loss of profit of Rs. 3,90,000/- cost of cement damaged Rs. 43,500/-, cost on account of damage of rod of Rs. 40,500/-, shifting charges of material of Rs. 15,000/-, establishment cost of Rs. 3,25,000/-, loss of profit of Rs. 3,00,000/-and under the head escalation Rs. 1,00,000/-. Finally, petitioner has claimed Rs. 11,00,000/-. 5. By filing written statement respondents have admitted the execution of an agreement, issuance of work order, cost of construction, shifting of place of construction from Ward No. 02 to Ward No. 12. As per written statement drawing and design was provided to petitioner on 18/03/2010. Respondents had paid Rs. 4,36,829/- on 28/06/2011 after final measurement. Final measurement was carried out in presence of petitioner but, petitioner had refused to sign. Petitioner grievances have been rightly adjudicated by the competent authority. Present reference petition is time barred and not maintainable as time barred. 6. In the light of rival pleadings the crucial question remains for consideration is whether the petitioner was unable to execute the work in absence of drawings and designs. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to recover Rs. 11,00,000/- from the respondents. 7. We have heard Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh counsel for petitioner and Mr. B.B. Agrawal counsel for respondents and perused the records. 8. As per Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh counsel for petitioner, both the parties had executed an agreement Ex.-P5 for construction of Cultural Building at Baradwar. Work order Ex.-P4 was issued on 21/10/2009. Initially petitioner was required to construct the building at Ward No. 02 but place of construction was shifted to Ward No. 12. Petitioner has shifted the material from Ward No. 02 to Ward No. 12 that caused extra cost for him. Respondents itself informed the petitioner vide Ex.-PIO and Ex.-Pl 1 for shifting of place of work from Ward No. 02 to Ward No. 12. As per Ex.-P-14 respondents have admitted the construction of door level and has also paid Rs. 1,60,388/- vide letter dated 27/12/2011 (Ex.-Pl 5). 9. Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh has further submitted that, petitioner had requested for supply of drawing and design which has been admitted by respondents vide Ex.-P21, Ex.-P22 and Ex.-P23. Petitioner was not able to complete the construction in absence of drawing and design. His work has been measured by the respondents in his absence. Petitioner has completed the work costing Rs. 5,50,000/- and only 1,60,000/- has been paid to him. Petitioner was not able to complete the construction in absence of drawing and design. His work has been measured by the respondents in his absence. Petitioner has completed the work costing Rs. 5,50,000/- and only 1,60,000/- has been paid to him. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for remaining amount along with the claim different heads. 10. As per Mr. B.B. Agrawal counsel for respondents although place of construction has been shifted from Ward No. 02 to Ward No. 12 but, drawing and design for construction has been provided by the respondents to the petitioner. Counsel for respondents has further submitted that as per record of M.B. book Article-'B' dated 27/06/2011 total amount due to the petitioner was calculated as Rs. 4,36,829/- which has been paid to him. Although petitioner has denied the facts but, O.I.C. Mr. C.K. Shrivastava has specifically deposed on oath in para 4 of his affidavit filed under Order 18 rule 4 of the C.P.C. that Rs. 4,36,829/- has been paid to the petitioner on 28/06/2011. But, he has further admitted in para 6 of his cross examination that, till 27/06/2011 Rs. 3.51,769/- has been paid. 11. Counsel for respondents has further submitted that, petitioner has received the amount due to him therefore, he is not entitled for any amount or any claim under any head. 12. In the light of respondents documents Ex.-P20, Ex.-P21, Ex.-P22, Ex.-P23, Ex.-P 24 and in absence of contra evidence/documents it would be difficult to hold that, drawing and design necessary for construction has been provided by the respondents to the petitioner. 13. As per pleadings of both the parties work of petitioner has been measured by the respondent's authorities. Truthfulness of measurement has not been admitted by the petitioner but, without any specific allegation it would not be possible to presume that, measurement by the public officer even in absence of petitioner was false. Therefore, on the basis of measurement book Article-'B' and its entry on page 12 it can be safely inferred that petitioner has completed the work amounting Rs. 4,36,829/-. Concern authority has made the entry "Bill prepared Rs. 4,36,829/-" on 28/06/2011 but, Ex.-Pl5 the letter written by respondents no. 2 dated 27/12/2011 much after 28/06/2011 shows that, only cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/- has been paid to the petitioner which has been admitted by the petitioner. 14. In the light of entry made in M.B. book Article-'B' relating to Rs. Concern authority has made the entry "Bill prepared Rs. 4,36,829/-" on 28/06/2011 but, Ex.-Pl5 the letter written by respondents no. 2 dated 27/12/2011 much after 28/06/2011 shows that, only cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/- has been paid to the petitioner which has been admitted by the petitioner. 14. In the light of entry made in M.B. book Article-'B' relating to Rs. 4,36,829/- and payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- vide Ex.-Pl 5. It can be safely inferred that, petitioner is entitled for 4,36,829 - 1,60,000 = 2,76,829/-. Place of construction has been shifted by the respondents. Therefore, petitioner is also entitled for shifting of material of Rs. 15,000/- but, in absence of other evidence petitioner is not entitled for other claims. Therefore, finally petitioner is entitled only for Rs. 2,76,829 + Rs. 15,000 - Rs. 2,91,829/-. In absence of any material documents to prove the factum of payment of Rs. 4,36,829/- at this stage it would be difficult to hold that respondents had paid Rs. 4,36,829/- but, it can be well established by the respondents by showing document of payment of aforesaid amount. 15. For the forgoing reason we are of considered view that, petitioner is entitled for Rs. 2,91,829/- from respondents in case it is not paid to the petitioner. Considering the agreement involving question of profit the petitioner is also entitled for interest at the rate 6% p.a. from the date of filing of reference petition till its realization. 16. Consequently, petition is partly awarded on following terms:- (i) Respondents shall pay Rs. 2,91,829/- to the petitioner with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing of reference petition i.e. 17/01/2013 till its realization. Unless it is proved by admissible document showing payment of Rs. 4,36,829/-. (ii) Respondent shall bear its own cost and proportionate cost of petitioner awarded. 17. Parties shall bear their remaining cost. 18. Advocate fees if certified as per schedule. 19. Memo of cost be drawn accordingly.