JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. The plaintiff/appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge IX, Ranchi, in Money Suit No.18 of 2003 whereby and where under the learned court below has decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part and directed the defendants to pay Rs.1,88,930.73/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum compounded yearly from the date of filing of the suit that is from 11.09.2003 till payment/realization of the entire decreetal dues but did not allow the prayer of the plaintiff for Rs.27,18,831.11/- towards escalation bill and interest thereon of Rs.23,73,950.19 up to 31.08.2003 with further interest. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The defendants issued a letter on 17.08.1993 in favor of the plaintiff for construction of a high level bridge over the river Damodar at Purnadih. The formal work order was awarded to the plaintiff on 11.10.1993. The work was to be completed within the 12 (twelve) months from the date of execution of the contract agreement that is from 22.01.1994. The site was handed over to the plaintiff on 03.11.1993 and mobilization advance of Rs.12,01,885/- was given to the plaintiff. The consulting agency namely M/s MAPS approved the lay out on 20.11.1993. As per the agreement, for running the piling machine, mixer, vibrator etc. power connection at the site was to be provided to the plaintiff and the power connection was provided only on 08.01.1994 that is after almost a delay of 45 days. A set of general arrangement pile lay out; contour map etc. was issued to the plaintiff on 08.10.1993. The second set of drawing was issued on 23.11.1993 being marked as advance copy. The final approval of the drawings was given on 20.01.1994 which resulted in delay of 62 days from 20.11.1993. On 25.04.1994, the forest officials arrested staff members of the plaintiff from the work site and stopped the work. On 23.06.1994, the staffs informed the plaintiff to re-start the work by letter dated 23.06.1994 which was received by the plaintiff on 05.07.1994. A period of 30 days was lost in this manner. By 05.07.1994 monsoon had set in. Hence, the plaintiff could only do the work in small manner outside the river bed. On 23.06.1994, the staffs informed the plaintiff to re-start the work by letter dated 23.06.1994 which was received by the plaintiff on 05.07.1994. A period of 30 days was lost in this manner. By 05.07.1994 monsoon had set in. Hence, the plaintiff could only do the work in small manner outside the river bed. At the behest of the forest officials, the work again stopped on 30.11.1994. On 03.12.1994, the forest officials again arrested three employees of the plaintiff and instituted a case against them. On 16.02.1995, the site office, store and labour colony of the plaintiff were closed by the defendant on the ground that it was falling within the safety zone of K.D. Magazine because of this; the project was delayed for about 15 days. After release of land from the Forest Department vide letter dated 27.09.1995 which was received by the plaintiff on 25.10.1995, the plaintiff was conveyed to restart the work. From 16.06.1995 to 14.12.1995 no work could be done due to monsoon. The initial design of the bridge was passed by HFL on 1996 but at the start of 1995, the plaintiff was informed that the site drawing was to be changed according to HFL. Hence, the plaintiff could not do the work on all available points as he did not know where the changes were expected. M/s MAPS issued revised drawings on 12.08.1995. On 12.03.1996, M/s MAPS visited the site and stopped the work at certain points as there was K.L. problem. On 27.03.1996, the plaintiff was issued revised drawings. For the purpose of Lok Sabha Election, trucks were seized besides local villagers and members of M.C.C. started troubling and threatening the plaintiff. On 07.02.1997, the work was completely stopped due to M.C.C. problem. The work suffered for a total delay of 54 days. From 01.06.1997 to 30.11.1997, again there were M.C.C. problem. But during this period, the plaintiff could carry out the work for 10 days out of 182 days. The plaintiff was given provisional extension up to 30.11.1997. The plaintiff practically completed the work and the bridge could be put to use if the approach roads were ready. Till 30.11.1997, the total value of work done by the plaintiff was nearly 120 lakhs that is marginally less than the contract value of Rs.1,20,18,851.61/-. The plaintiff was given provisional extension up to 30.11.1997. The plaintiff practically completed the work and the bridge could be put to use if the approach roads were ready. Till 30.11.1997, the total value of work done by the plaintiff was nearly 120 lakhs that is marginally less than the contract value of Rs.1,20,18,851.61/-. It is the further case of the plaintiff that besides the aforesaid delay, the work of plaintiff suffered and contributed to the delay in completion of the work on account of economic blockage and bunds, employment of local villagers, mobilization advance, problem of availability of electricity, nonpayment of the bills of the plaintiff timely. The plaintiff sought final extension of time up to 31.01.1998 because of the aforesaid reasons. The proposal in this respect was forwarded by the then S.E. (Construction) Piparwar recommending the grant of time up to 31.01.1998 without penalty, based on the facts prevailing at the project. The plaintiff further pleaded that the delay in completion of the contract work was due to the reasons beyond the control of the plaintiff. During the period of execution of the contract work costs shot up to uncontrollable limits. Hence, the plaintiff claimed escalation as per the construction agreement. The defendant company made a final bill and requested the plaintiff to sign the same. Though on 06.11.2000, the plaintiff checked and found mistakes in the final bill yet the plaintiff signed the said final bill after great persuasion and assurance from the defendants. The plaintiff requested for payment of bill amount and amount for escalation. But the defendants did not make any effort for settlement of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff served a letter and requested for the final bill amount and the escalation amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice through its advocate to the defendants by registered post by but even after that as the defendants did not pay the amount, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.52,81,712.02/- with interest and future interest @ 18% per annum. 4. After notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed their common written statement. Besides usual defence, the defendants admitted that letter of intent was issued on 17.08.1993 and the formal work order was issued on 11.10.1993. The defendants also admitted that the agreement was executed on 21.01.1994 and the work completed on 31.01.1998. 4. After notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed their common written statement. Besides usual defence, the defendants admitted that letter of intent was issued on 17.08.1993 and the formal work order was issued on 11.10.1993. The defendants also admitted that the agreement was executed on 21.01.1994 and the work completed on 31.01.1998. But the defendants pleaded that as the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in September, 2003 (date of filing of suit being 11.09.2003) and there is no admission of amount due to the plaintiff by the defendants hence after January, 1998, the suit has become barred by time. According to the defendants, the site was handed over to the plaintiff on 18.09.1993 and not on 09.11.1993 as pleaded by the plaintiff. The order for commencement of the work was issued on 18.09.1993 and the work was to be completed within stipulated twelve months that is 17.09.1994. The defendants further pleaded that after commencement of the work running account bills were paid to the plaintiff by the defendants which were accepted by the plaintiff without any protest. A set of drawings for the subject matter of general arrangement, abatement, wing walls and pile-layout along with drawings of contour map was issued to the plaintiff on 08.10.1993 to start the work and to continue the work for 4-5 months. The defendants issued second set of drawings on 23.11.1993 with endorsement that the same is advance copy. The defendants denied the averments of the plaintiff regarding the default in drawing and allied pleadings. It is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiff knowingly avoided to take up the construction work on the pretext of unavailability of final map. The defendants also specifically pleaded that the quality of work done by the plaintiff was not according to the specification and that C.B.I. is also making an inquiry regarding the work on the basis of complaint received by them. Hence, the final bill and the bill for escalation have not been finalized. It was specifically pleaded by the defendants that the claim of the plaintiff is incorrect and the defendants denied the said averment of the plaintiff regarding the quantum of enhanced amount. 5. Learned trial court, on the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties framed altogether seven issues which are as follows:- Issues (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 5. Learned trial court, on the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties framed altogether seven issues which are as follows:- Issues (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (iii) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit? (iv) Whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendants? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for his claim as per the contract? (vi) Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the plaintiff? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as claimed in the suit? 6. In support of its case, the plaintiff/company altogether examined three witnesses besides proving the following documents:- Ext. 1 to 1/Z and 1/Z/1 to 1/Z/46- Correspondence and note-sheet of the defendants. Ext. 2– Agreement between the parties in respect of the work. Ext. 3 to 3/Z and 3/Z/1 to 3/Z/26- Signature over the documents. Ext. 4 to 4/B- Latest letters by the plaintiffs. 7. On the other hand, the defendants examined three witnesses in support of their case and also proved the following documents:- Ext. A to A/41- Copy of various letters written to plaintiff. Ext. B- Forwarding letter with the copy of the original agreement. Ext. C- Document having identified and marked X/1 which was again marked as A/30. 8. The learned court below first took up the issue No.(ii) for consideration and after observing that in para-39 of the written statement, the defendants have acknowledged the final bill and the bill for escalation held that the suit is within time. Learned trial court next considered the issue No. (v) and arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff company is entitled to its claim towards final bill only as per the contract. In respect of issue No. (iv), learned court below held that the same is not disputed by the party. In respect of finding of other issues, the learned court below answered issue Nos.(i) and (iii) in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in part as already indicated above. 9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. In respect of finding of other issues, the learned court below answered issue Nos.(i) and (iii) in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit in part as already indicated above. 9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is also entitled for price escalation because the delay in completion of project occurred only because of the default on the part of the defendants. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below erred by not construing the import of note-sheet and the proposal prepared by the S.E. (C)/PPR which has been marked Ext.1/Z/45 wherein the defendants have admitted the default on their part and accepted the proposal for extension of time though there is no document to show that the said extension of time till 31.01.1998 was ever made. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prayer of the plaintiff regarding the amount of escalation be also decreed and the impugned judgment and decree be modified accordingly. 10. Mr. A. K. Srivastava the learned counsel appearing for the respondents defended the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that there is absolutely no pleading in the record of the plaintiff as to on what basis the escalation has been calculated. Mr. Srivastava submitted that as per the Clause-12 page-28 of the agreement between the parties, the escalation which deals with the escalation of labour wages was to be as per the increase of minimum wages based on government circulars as per formulae given in the agreement. Clause-15 at page 29 of the agreement marked Ext.2 provides for escalation of P.O.L. (diesel only). It is further submitted that Clause-16 at page-29 at Ext.2 provides for escalation in connection with increase in prices of cement. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no pleading of the plaintiff that there was ever any increase of the wages of the labours during the period or there was any escalation in the prices of diesel or cement during the period. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no pleading of the plaintiff that there was ever any increase of the wages of the labours during the period or there was any escalation in the prices of diesel or cement during the period. It is then submitted that in the absence of any pleadings or evidence in this respect certainly the figure of escalation mentioned in the plaint is an imaginary figure without based upon any reasoning and in the absence of any such sufficient pleading and its proof, certainly the plaintiff is not entitled to an imaginary amount of escalation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned court below has rightly did not allow the prayer regarding the escalation made by the plaintiff. Hence, it is submitted that the suit is rightly decreed and this appeal, being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, I find that only point for determination in this appeal is:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any money in respect of the escalation of the dues?” 12. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and the plaintiff cannot get any support from the weakness in the case of the defendants, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal v. Badagara Jamayath Palli Dharas Committee and others, AIR 2004 SC 4365 , wherein the Hon’ble Court in paragraph 8 inter alia held as under: “8...... The Plaintiff could only succeed on the strength of its case and not on the weakness found in the case of the Defendant, if any ....”. After carefully going through the pleadings of the plaintiff, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has not whispered a word in its pleading as to on what basis it has arrived at an escalation bill amount of Rs.27,18,831/-. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is absolutely no pleading regarding any escalation of the wages of the labours, escalation of P.O.L. (diesel) or the prices of the cement. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is absolutely no pleading regarding any escalation of the wages of the labours, escalation of P.O.L. (diesel) or the prices of the cement. In the absence of such sufficient pleading, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to establish its claim of Rs.27,18,831/- towards escalation bill, as the plaintiff, in the absence of any pleading or the proof, has failed to make out a case for being entitled to any of escalation claimed by it, in terms of the agreement. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to any money in respect of the escalation of the dues in this suit. The point of determination is answered accordingly. 13. In view of the answer to the point of determination, the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge IX, Ranchi, in Money Suit No.18 of 2003 is confirmed and this appeal, being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without any cost. 14. Let the lower court records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. Appeal dismissed.