JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. Heard Ms. Nuksungtila, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellants and also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. Advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondent. This is an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Rule 29 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 directed against the judgment and order dated 30.5.2014, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur in Civil Suit No. 15/2007. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are as follows: The appellants/defendants floated a Tender Notice No. 105/2003 (IT-3) on 2003, for Execution of the work, "At LMG-Repairs to main road from 1st BN RPSF/LMG Complex to Recreation Club with Colony road at Loco Colony; BF Colony; S.H. Colony et. Under SSE (W)/S/LMG" for an amount of Rs. 38,18,035/-. In response, the respondent/plaintiff submitted his tender vide his letter dated 17.02.2005 and he was selected for the work. Accordingly, on 24.02.2005, an agreement was signed and according to the same the petitioner was to finish the work on or before 16.08.2005. Thereafter, a subsidiary contract agreement was signed by the parties on 12.06.2006, by which the respondent/plaintiff was given additional work and the value of the contract was enhanced to Rs. 44,45,096/- and time limit for completion of the work was also extended till 30.05.2006. The contract agreement was signed by Sri. James Akham on behalf of the respondent firm M/s. J.A. Brothers and on behalf of the President of India by Divisional Engineer, N.E.F. Railway, Lumding. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that as per the contract agreement he had completed execution of the work on 21.07.2006. So, he informed the appellants/defendants and requested for final measurement and payment of the bill through a letter dated 22.07.2006, but due to non-payment of illegal gratification demanded by the appellants/defendants No. 5, final measurement could not take place even after 2(two) months from the date of his report. Having no choice the plaintiff with his authorised Engineer and staffs took final measurement of the work done and the result of the same tallied with the records of the quantities of the materials used and volume of the work done and signed by both the parties in the register maintained by defendant No. 5. Having no choice the plaintiff with his authorised Engineer and staffs took final measurement of the work done and the result of the same tallied with the records of the quantities of the materials used and volume of the work done and signed by both the parties in the register maintained by defendant No. 5. Thereafter, he submitted the same to the Divisional Railway Manager, N.F. Railway at Lumding vide his letter No. Final Bill/NFR/LMG/06-07 dated 4.10.2006 for payment of the outstanding bill amounting to Rs. 19,52,012/-. However, he did not get any response for payment of the bill. Therefore, he was compelled to issue a legal notice through his Advocate to the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Lumding. Only thereafter, the appellants/defendants responded and fixed 23.12.2006 for doing the same but no one from the appellants/defendants side came forward for measurement of the work done. As such, he wrote a letter on the same day to the appellants/defendants requesting for the same. Thereafter, another date i.e. 12.2.2007 was again fixed for the joint measurement but on that day also the same could not be carried out as the appellant/defendant No. 5, assaulted and criminally intimidated the people who were at work site on behalf of the respondent for the purpose. A complaint regarding the incident was submitted to the Railway authorities but no action was taken. Since the petitioner did not get positive response from the appellants, he filed a suit before the Addl. District Judge, Dimapur praying for a decree for the sum of Rs. 19,52,012/- and for a decree of Rs. 20,00,000/- as cost for the delay along with interest @ 18% p.a. on the decreetal amount with pendente lite and future interest till the amount is paid in full. The learned Addl. District Judge, Dimapur by an ex-parte judgment and order passed on 20.06.2008, disposed the suit and directed the appellants/defendants to pay the sum of Rs. 19,52,012/- to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of 30 days and also to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit. 3. Aggrieved, the appellants/defendants filed an appeal before this Court and the same was disposed by an order passed on 5.6.2009 in Misc. 19,52,012/- to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of 30 days and also to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit. 3. Aggrieved, the appellants/defendants filed an appeal before this Court and the same was disposed by an order passed on 5.6.2009 in Misc. Appeal (F) No. 3(K) of 2008, wherein the ex-parte decree was set aside and the learned District Judge, Dimapur was directed to dispose the suit within 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the case record. Before the learned Addl. District Judge, Dimapur two preliminary objections were raised by filing a Civil Misc. application which was registered as Civil Misc. Petition No. 64 of 2009, by the appellants/defendants wherein it was stated that since the respondent/plaintiff did not fulfill the condition precedent in terms of Clause-64(1)(i) of the North East Frontier Railway, General Conditions of Contract and Standard Special Conditions of Contract, 1988 before filing the case, the Court cannot take up the case. Secondly, that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction. The objections were dismissed by the learned District Judge by his order dated 14.09.2010, therefore, the appellants/defendants once again came to this Court for setting aside the same. The same was registered as F.A. No. 1(K) of 2011 in this Court. On 19.06.2013, this Court dismissed the appeal stating that under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is a precondition to file an application in the Court but since this was not done, the appellants/defendants were already barred from taking that plea, and the District Court has jurisdiction to try the case. 4. Thereafter, the appellants/defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit stating as follows; (i) that the Attorney Holder Ram Kawal Prasad has no locus standi to represent the respondent/plaintiff, (ii) that the learned District Judge, Dimapur has no pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit, (iii) that the suit was liable to be dismissed in terms of the Clause 64(1)(i) of Northeast Frontier Railway, General Conditions of Contract and Standard Special Conditions of Contract, 1988, (iv) that the suit was not maintainable for mis-joinder of parties, (v) that the respondent/plaintiff did not complete the work, (vi) that the respondent/plaintiff completed only 81% of the work for which the sum of Rs. 33,46,930/- has been paid to him and the same was informed to the plaintiff through letter dated 06.12.2006, (vii) that on 12.02.2007, the respondent/plaintiff and the appellants/defendants went to the work side for joint measurement but when the respondent/plaintiff was directed to dig the road surface for actual and necessary measurement he did not comply and left the spot with a pretext to arrange the labour and equipments. 5. The suit was tried and the learned District Judge framed 19 issues and disposed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.14. The issues framed and the judgment delivered are reproduce here below; - "Issues: 1. The following issues were framed in this suit on the basis of the pleadings on record; (i) Whether the plaintiff was issued works for repair of main road BNRPSE/LMG complex to recreation club with colony road at loco colony, BSF Colony, SH colony, RPSC colony etc. for N.F. Railway at Lumding under contract agreement No. S.E/302 dated 24.02.2005 and subsidiary contract agreement No. S.E/142 dated 12.06.2006? (2) Whether the defendant No. 5 was work-in-charge for the said work and compelled the plaintiff to excuse work exceeding the volume covered by the contract agreement and thereby got the work increased by 52.75% in an unassigned location? (3) Whether the defendant No. 5 misbehaved with the work-in-charge representatives and workers of the plaintiff whenever they opposed to do extra work not covered by the contract agreement? (4) Whether the unwarranted misbehavior of defendant No. 5 was reported and complained to the superior authorities by the plaintiff? If so, whether any action was proposed to be taken or taken against the defendant No. 5? (5) Whether the plaintiff completed the work on 21.07.2007 and reported to the defendants requesting for final measurement and payment of the final bill for the entire work done by the plaintiff? (6) Whether the joint measurement of the work was ever done by the defendants in presence of the plaintiffs representative? (7) Whether due to the default of the defendants to measure the work in presence of plaintiff has submitted bill (final) amounting to Rs. 52,52,012/- prepared by the plaintiffs Engineer Mr. M.A. Khan and requested the defendants to pay Rs. 19,52,012/- being balance payable to the plaintiff? (7) Whether due to the default of the defendants to measure the work in presence of plaintiff has submitted bill (final) amounting to Rs. 52,52,012/- prepared by the plaintiffs Engineer Mr. M.A. Khan and requested the defendants to pay Rs. 19,52,012/- being balance payable to the plaintiff? (8) Whether the bill prepared by the plaintiff's Engineer and demand thereof by the plaintiff was ever opposed or denied by the defendants? (9) Whether Rs. 19,52,012/- demanded by the plaintiff being balance of the final bill is still due to be paid to the plaintiff, if so, whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff with interest and damages as claimed? (10) Whether the suit is not maintainable in terms of the clause 64(1)(i) of N.F. Railways general conditions of contract and standard special conditions of contract, 1998? (11) Whether this court has pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the instant suit? (12) Whether the attorney holder Shri Ram Kawal Prasad has locus standi to represent the plaintiff M/S. J.A. Bro and to file the instant suit? (13) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? (14) Whether due to the default of the plaintiff the contract work was not completed within the stipulated period in terms of the CA No. SE/302 dated 24/2/05 and on four different occasions further time of time has been extended to complete the contract work at the request of the plaintiff? (15) Whether the defendant has paid to the plaintiff altogether Rs. 33,46,930/- on different occasions considering the work in progress as jointly and severally measured and recorded in presence to the plaintiff and getting acknowledgment thereto? (16) Whether despite all extensions of time the work awarded to the plaintiff became incomplete and unsatisfactory and the plaintiff even worked illegally contrary to the terms of contract? (17) Whether the plaintiff without any cause is trying to tarnish/degrade the reputation of the defendant No. 5? (18) Whether the plaintiff co-operated with the defendants to complete the joint measurement of the work at the date fixed on 12.2.07? (19) Whether the defendants are entitled to the damages and costs caused by unnecessary litigation by the plaintiff, if so, to what extent?" 6. (18) Whether the plaintiff co-operated with the defendants to complete the joint measurement of the work at the date fixed on 12.2.07? (19) Whether the defendants are entitled to the damages and costs caused by unnecessary litigation by the plaintiff, if so, to what extent?" 6. Finding on issue No. 1; With regard to issue No. 1, the issuance of work to the plaintiff under Contract agreement No. SE/302 dated 24.02.2005 (Exhibit-2) and subsidiary contract agreement No. S.E/142 dated 12.06.2006 (Exhibit P-3) have not been disputed by the defendants and as such the issue in question is decided in the affirmative. Finding upon issues Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 17: Issue No. 2, 3, 4 and 17 is concerned with the defendant No. 5 and accordingly discussed together. The plaintiff in his pleadings as well as in the statement-in-affidavit of PW-1, has stated that the defendant No. 5 often was the work-in-charge of the defendants and the plaintiff and his workers used to follow his instructions in executing the works. It was stated that the defendant No. 5 often raised unreasonable objections and used to harass and assault the plaintiffs working agents and that defendant No. 5 also increased the work from 50% to 75% in depth, width and length and also compelled them to execute the work at unassigned location, i.e. diesel shed which was not included in the contract agreement thereby obstructing and delaying the progress of the work. This statement of PW-1 is corroborated by the statement of PW-2 when he stated in his statement-in-affidavit that he along with PW-1 and other workers of the plaintiff reported to the SSE/WS/LMG namely Deepak Majumdar for joint measurement of the work as scheduled on 12.02.2007 but Deepak Majumdar did not cooperate. Instead he misbehaved uttering very filthy and un-parliamentary words. PW-2 stated that Deepak Majumdar even attacked P W-1 through some unknown persons, however, they managed to save him and he also heard that the proprietor of M/S. J.A. brothers had filed complaint against the said Deepak Majumdar to the Divisional Engineer, N.F. Railway, Lumding the next day on 13.02.2007. The plaintiff stated in his pleadings and P W-1 stated in his examination-in-chief that the defendant No. 5, namely Deepak Majumdar had not prepared the final bill as his illegal demand of Rs. 2,10,000/- was no paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated in his pleadings and P W-1 stated in his examination-in-chief that the defendant No. 5, namely Deepak Majumdar had not prepared the final bill as his illegal demand of Rs. 2,10,000/- was no paid by the plaintiff. Plaintiff also stated that he had complained to the defendant authorities about the behavior of Deepak Majumdar vide letter dated 13.02.2007 (Exhibit P-8) None of these statements have been rebutted by the defendants neither in their written statement nor in their evidence. In fact DW-2 in his cross examination stated that there was some dispute between the Superintending Engineer (defendant No. 5) and the contractor and he stated that Exhibit P-8 letter dated 13.02.2007 written by the contractor was received by him and copies thereof to GM, BMR, Sr. DEN and ADEN, but that pursuant to Exhibit P-8 there was no departmental action against the Superintending Engineer. This statement of DW-.2 is further corroborated by DW-1 in his cross-examination wherein he has stated that: "it is also correct to say that no enquiry was conducted from our defendant side against Shri Deepab Majumdar defendant No. 5 in spite of plaintiffs report of his misbehavior vide letter dated 13.02.2007 (Exhibit P-8)". It is also pertinent that the defendants have never examined Shri Deepak Majumdar so as to rebut the claims made by the plaintiff and hence they remain un-controverted. In the premises as discussed above, the issue No. 2, 3, and 4 are decided in the affirmative and 17 is decided in the negative. Finding upon issue Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 18: It is the case of the plaintiff that he had intimated the defendant No. 5 vide letter dated 22.07.2006 (Exhibit P-4) that the contract work had been completed and requested for final measurement and payment of final bill. Issue No. 5 is the crux of this suit. This pleading of the plaintiff is corroborated by the statement of DW-2 in his cross examination wherein he had stated that: "I have seen the Exhibit P-4, the acknowledgement of the letter, i.e., the Exhibit P-4 was made by the concerned section and not by me". It is further corroborated by the DW-I in his cross-examination wherein he has stated that: "It is correct to say that we have not repudiated the letter dated 22.07.2006 (Exhibit P-4) by exhibiting documents before this Hon'ble Court". It is further corroborated by the DW-I in his cross-examination wherein he has stated that: "It is correct to say that we have not repudiated the letter dated 22.07.2006 (Exhibit P-4) by exhibiting documents before this Hon'ble Court". The defendants in their W.S. have themselves stated in paragraph 16 that the defendants extended the time for completion four times; upto 31.12.05, upto 31.03.06, upto 30.05.06 and lastly upto 31.07.06 whereas the plaintiff in his letter dated 22.07.2006 (Exhibit P-4) had informed the defendants that the work had been completed on 21.07.06. The defendants have also stated in their W.S. that various reminder letters had been written to the plaintiff vide letters dated 19.01.2006 (Exhibit D-1), 12.07.06 (Exhibit D-2), 06.09.06 (Exhibit D-3) and 06.12.06 (Exhibit D-4) stating that the contractual work was not completed and expressing dissatisfaction with the work. Therefore, what appears from the materials on record is that though the defendants have stated in their W.S. as well as in the deposition of DW-1 and DW-2 that the work is yet to be completed, yet in his cross-examination DW-1 stated that he has not produced any documents before the Court to prove that plaintiff has not completed the work. He further stated in his cross examination that he does not know the facts of the case earlier, until 2012. DW-2 in his cross-examination stated that: "I do not know the details of the work for which the contract involved in this suit entered into between NF Railway and the Contractor" and "I cannot say what the date of completion involved in the C.A. was, I also do not know the total estimated value of the work". It is also on record that DW-2 in his cross-examination has stated that he is not the author of Exhibit D-1 and he also stated that he has no evidence to confirm whether this letter was served to the contractor. He stated that there was dispute between the Superintending Engineer and the Contractor. It is apparent from the above discussion that both the DWs do not know any details about the work involved in the present suit. It is settled law that in a civil suit it is preponderance of probability of the cases of both the contesting parties that should be taken into consideration. The principle and test of strict liability, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required to be applied. It is settled law that in a civil suit it is preponderance of probability of the cases of both the contesting parties that should be taken into consideration. The principle and test of strict liability, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required to be applied. It is therefore clear that there is no cogent evidence from the side of the defendants to prove that the work was not completed on 21.07.2006. Hence, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has been able to show that work had been completed on 21.07.2006. Issue No. 5 is accordingly answered in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff. In view of this finding issue No. 16 also stands decided in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff. As far as issue No. 6 and 7 are concerned, the plaintiff has stated that no joint measurement could be done till date due to the default of the defendants and due to their non appearance on the date fixed for the joint measurement. This contention has been admitted by the defendants in their W.S. at paragraph 21. DW-1 also in his cross examination stated that: "it is correct to say that on 07.12.2006 which was the fixed Day for joint verification of the contract work, the defendants could not attend the same as some more important work came up". This statement is corroborated by DW-2 in his Gross examination which is that "as per advice of DRM and Divisional Engineer the Contractor attended for joint measurement of work on 23.12.2006, however measurement could not be done due to absence of SSE", he has also stated that: "it is correct to say that the contractor executed the work as per the contract work and CA raised between the parties but joint measurement was not done by the parties". The plaintiff has further stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint that at the failure of the defendants to attend the joint verification several times the plaintiffs authorized Engineer (PW-1) along with his other agents and staff and took a detailed measurement of the entire work executed by the plaintiff and prepared the bill amounting to Rs. 52,52,012/- and submitted it to the Divisional Railway Manager, N.F. Railway, Lumding vide letter dated 04.10.2006 (Exhibit P5). DW-2 has deposed that letter dated 04.10.2006 with enclosure thereto was received from the contractor. 52,52,012/- and submitted it to the Divisional Railway Manager, N.F. Railway, Lumding vide letter dated 04.10.2006 (Exhibit P5). DW-2 has deposed that letter dated 04.10.2006 with enclosure thereto was received from the contractor. These figures have not been disproved by the defendants anywhere in their pleadings or by any contrary evidence. Accordingly, issue No. 6 and 7 are decided in favour of the plaintiff. As far as issue No. 8 is concerned DW-1 has stated that: "it is correct to say that the defendants have received the letter dated 04.10.2006 (7 pages) in the year 2006, however I do not know whether the defendants had replied to that said letter". DW-2 has also deposed that letter dated 04.10.2006 with enclosure thereto was received from the contractor. This bill which was submitted in the year 2006 has not been rebutted by the defendants. This Court has already held that these figures have not been disproved by the defendants anywhere in their pleadings or by any contrary evidence. Hence, issue No. 8 is also answered in negative. From the above discussion it is proved that the plaintiff had cooperated with the defendants by appearing and attending the joint measurement 23.11.2006 as well as on 12.02.2007, thus issue No. 18 is decided in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff. Finding upon issues Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13: It is seen from records that issue No. 10 and 11 have already been decided by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench vide order dated 19.06.2013 in F.A. No. 1(K) 2011 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. The Hon'ble High Court also held that "there is a precondition to file an application in the Court under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. However, no such petition was filed. Hence, the defendants are debarred from taking the plea for arbitration". Therefore, in such circumstances issue No. 10 and 11 have become non issues and need no discussion. Regarding issue No. 12, it is also seen from records that this Court had allowed the plaintiffs attorney holder Shri Ram Kawal Prasad to represent the plaintiff vide order dated 29.04.2008 which remains unchallenged by the defendants. Therefore, issue No. 12 is also decided in the affirmative. Regarding issue No. 12, it is also seen from records that this Court had allowed the plaintiffs attorney holder Shri Ram Kawal Prasad to represent the plaintiff vide order dated 29.04.2008 which remains unchallenged by the defendants. Therefore, issue No. 12 is also decided in the affirmative. As far as issue No. 13 is concerned, the defendants have not adduced any evidence to prove that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. This issue is decided in the negative. Finding upon issues Nos. 14 and 15: As per the finding of this Court in issue No. 5 the contract work had been completed and plaintiff had requested for final measurement and payment of final bill vide Exhibit P-4. Issue No. 5 is the crux of this suit. DW-2 in his cross examination had stated that: "I have seen the Exhibit P-4, the acknowledgement of the letter, i.e., the Exhibit P-4 was made by the concerned section and not by me". This statement was further corroborated by the D W-1 in his cross-examination wherein he has stated that: "it is correct to say that we have not repudiated the letter dated 22.7.2006 (Exhibit P-4) by exhibiting documents before this Hon'ble Court". The defendants have stated in their W.S. that the defendants extended the time for completion four times: upto 31.12.05, upto 31.03.06, upto 30.05.06 and lastly upto 31.07.06 whereas the plaintiff in his letter dated 22.07.2006 (Exhibit P-4) stated that the work was completed on 21.07.2006. Hence, it is proved that the defendants extended the time of completion four times and plaintiff completed the work in the fourth extended period. Issue No. 14 is decided in the negative and proved in favour of plaintiff. Except for an averment at paragraph 17 in their written statement, the defendants have not adduced any evidence to prove issue No. 15. Hence, issue No. 15 is not proved. Finding upon issues Nos. 9 and 19: These two issues are taken up together for discussion as they relate to reliefs. In view of the findings in the issues No. 1 to 8, 10 to. 18 the defendants are not entitled to any damages as they have not been able to prove their entitlement for the same. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance bill of Rs. 19,52,012/- (rupees nineteen lakhs fifty two thousand twelve) only from the defendants jointly and severally. 18 the defendants are not entitled to any damages as they have not been able to prove their entitlement for the same. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the balance bill of Rs. 19,52,012/- (rupees nineteen lakhs fifty two thousand twelve) only from the defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 21.07.2006 and damages amounting to. Rs. 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs) only, but, in the interest of justice, I am not inclined to award any interest prior to the date of institution of the suit. I am only inclined to award pendente lite interest and further interest and that too at the rate of 9% p.a. if the defendants fail to satisfy the decree within the period stipulated therein which I think is appropriate and reasonable. I am also not inclined to grant any damages as claimed by the plaintiff. The issues are answered accordingly. Order The suit is decreed on contest. The plaintiff is entitled to realise, from the defendants, a sum of Rs. 19,52,012/- (Rupees nineteen lakh fifty tow thousand twelve) within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of decree and in default the defendants shall be liable to pay the decreetal amount along with pendent lite interest and further interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said amount with effect from the date of institution of this suit (16.08.2007) till realisation. Judgment passed in open court on this the 30th day of May, 2014. A decree be drawn accordingly within 15 days from today and the case record be consigned to the record room. 7. The learned counsel of the appellants/defendants in this case submitted the case of the appellants as follows: (i) That the learned District Judge without considering the evidence given by the appellants/defendants and submissions made on their behalf but solely on the evidence given and the submission made by the respondent/plaintiff decided the case. (ii) That the learned District Judge did not properly look into the contract agreement dated 24.02.2005, more particularly, article 40(1); 45(a)(b); 46(1) and 63 of the same. (iii) That in the written statement of the appellants/defendants, it was stated that the Attorney Holder Sri. Ram Kawal Prasad, has no locus standi to represent the plaintiff M/s. J.A. Brothers as the principal plaintiff Sri. (iii) That in the written statement of the appellants/defendants, it was stated that the Attorney Holder Sri. Ram Kawal Prasad, has no locus standi to represent the plaintiff M/s. J.A. Brothers as the principal plaintiff Sri. James Akham, proprietor of the firm had appeared before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), and submitted both orally and through his letter dated 29.10.2007, that the suit was filed against the appellants/defendants against his will and also even requested that the same be dismissed. (iv) That while considering the Issue Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 19, the learned District Judge did not consider and also failed to appreciate the steps taken by the appellants/defendants. (v) That at Issue No. 5, the learned District Judge failed to take into account the letter dated 06.09.2006, Exhibit D-3 addressed to the respondent/plaintiff in reply to his letter dated 22.07.2006 (Exhibit P-4), wherein it was clearly mentioned that the work has not been completed and no labour was available at the work site. (vi) According to Clause 40(1) of GCC 1998, the contractor was bound to handover the work after completion of the same and to the satisfaction of the Engineer of Railways and not by mere information that the work is completed. That DW-1 and DW-2 in their cross-examination clearly stated that the contractor could not complete the work but just because they failed to remember the stipulated date for completion of the work mentioned in the contract agreement and the value of the work the learned District Judge had concluded that the work was completed. (vii) That on Issue Nos. 6 & 7, conclusion drawn by the learned District Judge that because of the failure on the part of the appellants/defendants to take measurement on 07.12.2006 and 23.12.2006, the contractor was compelled to take self measurement and submitted the same on 04.10.2006, is absurd because the date 04.10.2006, is prior to the two dates on which the measurement could not be taken. That it is true that the appellants/defendants admitted the fact that the measurement could not take place due to unavoidable engagements, however, on the next date fixed for joint measurement i.e. 12.02.2007, when the contractor/respondent was asked to dig the road to ascertain the thickness of the same he left the spot and never came back. That it is true that the appellants/defendants admitted the fact that the measurement could not take place due to unavoidable engagements, however, on the next date fixed for joint measurement i.e. 12.02.2007, when the contractor/respondent was asked to dig the road to ascertain the thickness of the same he left the spot and never came back. As per Clause 45 of GCC of 1998, measurement is to be taken by the Engineer of the Railways and if the contractor wants to raise objection he can do so. Therefore, the measurement of the contractor cannot be accepted. It is also submitted that the Contractor was given all the bills for all the work done and he has signed receipts for all the bills received by him, therefore, his plea that he has not received the bill for the work done should not have been accepted. (viii) That on Issue No. 8, the authenticity of the bill amounting to Rs. 52.52 lakhs submitted on 04.10.2006 by respondent/plaintiff was specifically denied and in fact through a letter dated 07.12.2006, exhibit D-4, the respondent/plaintiff was informed that the work was not yet completed. But this letter was not taken into account by the learned District Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order. And that apart the respondent/plaintiff was also informed through a letter dated 24.07.2007, that he had not undertaken any work after he had received the CC-IV bills. But all these were also not taken into account while passing the impugned judgment and order by the learned District Judge. (ix) That on Issue No. 9 & 19, GCC, 1998 Clause 16(3) clearly specified that no interest will be payable upon the earnest money and security deposit but the learned District Judge, Dimapur while passing the impugned judgment and order without taking this into account awarded interest @ 9% for the same, therefore, the learned District Judge had committed an error on this. (x) That the learned District Judge failed to appreciate the case of the appellants that the respondent/plaintiff completed only 81% of the work and for that bill has been paid inspite of the evidence supporting the same. (x) That the learned District Judge failed to appreciate the case of the appellants that the respondent/plaintiff completed only 81% of the work and for that bill has been paid inspite of the evidence supporting the same. (xi) That since the Railways represented by the appellants is a public authority having committed responsibilities for the welfare and benefit of the citizens when such false claims are made against it, the learned District Judge, before finally passing the impugned judgment and order should have conducted spot inquiry. (xii) That the learned District Judge erred in awarding the pendente lite @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount because the respondent/plaintiff have not been even completed the work. 8. Learned Sr. counsel for the respondent Mr. C.T. Jamir submits briefly that learned District Judge, Dimapur after considering all the pleadings of both the parties evidence given by them and the law applicable has concluded rightly that the respondent/plaintiff are liable to pay the pending bill, therefore, he has nothing much to submit in support of the same. From the submissions of the learned counsels for the appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff only three issues have emerged for consideration in this appeal, they are being discussed here below: (i) whether the measurement of the contract work taken by the authorised Engineer of the respondent/plaintiff and submitted to the concerned authority of the appellants/defendants can be accepted as proof for completion of the contract work allotted to the respondent/petitioner by the appellants and if so whether the bill amount arrived at as per the measurement can be accepted as the final bill due to the respondent/plaintiff for the contract work. There is no denying of the fact that on two occasions fixed by the respondents/defendants themselves i.e. 23.12.2006 and 12.2.2007, the joint measurement of the work done by the respondent/plaintiff did not take place. On the first occasion i.e. on 23.12.06, because none from the respondents'/defendants' side appeared at the work site inspite of the notice send by them to the respondent/plaintiff. On the second occasion i.e. on 12.02.2007, the measurement could not take place because of the alleged misbehavior and attempt to assault the Attorney Holder of the respondent/plaintiff by the Divisional Engineer (appellant No. 5) which is not denied by the appellants/defendants. On the second occasion i.e. on 12.02.2007, the measurement could not take place because of the alleged misbehavior and attempt to assault the Attorney Holder of the respondent/plaintiff by the Divisional Engineer (appellant No. 5) which is not denied by the appellants/defendants. The facts stated above shows that the appellants/defendants were not keen in measuring the work done by the respondent/plaintiff for reasons known only to them. If they were interested they could have done the same on the dates mentioned or fixed some other date or dates thereafter and complete the measurement of the work done. When they have not done their duty or obligation they cannot turn around and take shelter under Clause-40(1) of the North East Frontier Railway, General Conditions of Contract, 1988. If they did not take appropriate action when they had sufficient time they must face the consequence of the same. The law does not come to the rescue of people who sleep over their right or entitlement. In this case, the measurement undertaken by the authorised Engineer of the respondent/petitioner was not without any basis. The Engineer testified in his evidence as PW-2 that his measurements were tallied with the records of the materials used and the work done, wherein the respondent/plaintiff and the representative of the appellants/defendants signed, and which was maintained by the representative of the respondents/defendants. This statement of the Engineer was never questioned/contradicted by the appellants/defendants. PW-1 who is the representative of the respondent/plaintiff in this case also supported the case of the respondent/plaintiff with his evidence both of oral and documents. His evidence was never shaken or discredited by the appellants/defendants in his cross-examination or through evidence given by them. On the other hand, the two defence witnesses are persons who were not there when the contract was signed and the work was executed. Their depositions were solely based on the official records. None of the official records exhibited by them show that measurement was taken by the appellants/defendants or their agent and the contract work was not executed completely by the respondents/defendants or only upto 81% of the same was completed as claim in their appeal. In view of the above reasons given above, I find nothing wrong on the conclusion drawn by the learned District Judge, Dimapur in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2014 (ii) The second issue is whether the power of Attorney Holder Sri. In view of the above reasons given above, I find nothing wrong on the conclusion drawn by the learned District Judge, Dimapur in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2014 (ii) The second issue is whether the power of Attorney Holder Sri. Ram Kawal Prasad has locus standi to represent the plaintiff firm M/S. J.A. Brothers in this case or not. Sri. Ram Kawal Prasad, Attorney Holder gave evidence as P W-1 and he stated that he was given the power of Attorney by Sri. James Akham, the proprietor of the firm to execute the contract work and also to represent the plaintiff firm in any suit which may arise in connection or relation to the work. He exhibited the power of Attorney bearing registration No. RD 73/07, dated 10.08.2007 executed by Sri. James Akham in his favour as exhibit P-1(i)(iv). The power of Attorney at para-3 authorised Sri. Ram Kawal Prasad to represent the firm in any suit in connection with the contract work. In his cross-examination, nothing was asked by the appellants/defendants' counsel to discredit his claim. Besides, in the evidence given by the D Ws there is nothing which prove otherwise. Therefore, one can only conclude that Sr. Ram Kawal Prasad was duly authorised agent/power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff firm M/s. J.A. Brothers in connection with the contract work and the suit and he is legally competent to represent the firm in this case. (iii) The third issues is whether the learned District Judge was justified in granting pendent lite interest and future interest both @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation of the decreetal amount if the appellants/defendants fail to satisfy the decree within the period of 1 (one) month. The allotment of contract work and execution of the same is a commercial transaction. The contractor invest money, labour and machinery for which he is promised return. When the expected or the deserved return is not given at the right time he incurs a loss. Because if he was given what he was entitled to at the right time he would have invested the same and get profit or interest out of it. Therefore, I find the pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. granted by the learned District Judge, Dimapur justified. As such, the impugned judgment and order needs no interference. Because if he was given what he was entitled to at the right time he would have invested the same and get profit or interest out of it. Therefore, I find the pendente lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. granted by the learned District Judge, Dimapur justified. As such, the impugned judgment and order needs no interference. In view of the above discussions and conclusions drawn, I find no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the same is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.