ORDER 1. The appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in a first appeal against a judgment of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in a suit for recovery of money. The appellant awarded three contracts to the respondent for the construction of staff quarters in 1984-1985. 2. The respondent filed OS No 1528 of 1992 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,48,285 together with interest. 3. The Trial court by its judgment dated 15 December 2001 found that an amount of Rs. 50,753 was due and payable. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in that amount together with interest at 6 per cent per annum. 4. In an appeal filed by the respondent, the High Court by its judgment dated 9 March 2006 enhanced the amount payable and decreed the suit claim in its entirety with interest at 12 per cent per annum. 5. The High Court, while coming to the conclusion that the suit claim was to be decreed, observed that all the final bills were duly certified by the architect, establishing the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. 6. The suit claim of the respondent, which is adverted to in Annexure P-12 is to the following effect: ?I. Construction of Item of work: ANNEXURE Prl. Amt. Due Interest Total Quaters Type A, B & C (As per Annexure -A) 3,57,200.00 2,87,546.00 6,44,746.00 Hostal Building (as per Annexure-B) 2,47,780.00 1,95,126.75 4,42,906.75 Execution of Works of roads & Culverts (as per Annexure-C) 2,59,533.00 2,08,924.06 4,68,457.06 Ex. of Sentry Room & other works (as per Annexure-D) 15,254.00 12,279.47 27,533.47 Ex. of Addl. And extra works (as per Annex. E) 72,000.00 41,580.00 1,13,580.00 ---------------- 9,51,567.00 --------------- ----------------- 7,45,456.28 ----------------- ------------------ 16,97,223.28 -----------------? 7. Out of the above items, the items which are in dispute are execution of works on roads and culverts and execution of additional and extra works. The claim against these heads was in the amount of Rs. 2,59,533 and Rs. 72,000 respectively. 8. The suit claim sets out the amounts which were paid to the Respondent. II. Less amounts paid together with counter interest Amts. Paid Counter Interest Total On 22-6-88 4,04,480.00 3,04,371.20 22-12-88 97,929.00 63,409.02 20-3-89 1,00,000.00 59,500.00 3 29-11-89 81,458.00 37,290.89 ---------------- 6,84,367.00 --------------- ----------------- 4,64,571.11 ----------------- ------------------ 11,48,938.11 -----------------? 9. 2,59,533 and Rs. 72,000 respectively. 8. The suit claim sets out the amounts which were paid to the Respondent. II. Less amounts paid together with counter interest Amts. Paid Counter Interest Total On 22-6-88 4,04,480.00 3,04,371.20 22-12-88 97,929.00 63,409.02 20-3-89 1,00,000.00 59,500.00 3 29-11-89 81,458.00 37,290.89 ---------------- 6,84,367.00 --------------- ----------------- 4,64,571.11 ----------------- ------------------ 11,48,938.11 -----------------? 9. The attention of the Court is drawn to the fact that as against the claim of Rs. 2.59 lakhs for the execution of roads and culverts, an amount of Rs. 97,929 was paid to the respondent. As a matter of fact, the respondent executed a receipt towards full and final settlement of all claims and demands relating to the work of road formation and construction of culverts. 10. In the course of his cross-examination, the proprietor of the respondent made the following admission: "Now I see the receipt confronted to me, the said receipt is marked at Ex. D1. It is true to suggest that the said amount was received towards full and final settlement towards road and culverts." 11. As regards the amount of Rs. 72,000, the witness during the course of his cross-examination stated that the bill had not been certified by the Architect. The relevant part of the cross-examination reads as follows: "It is true to suggest that bill raised by me for Rs. 72000/- for addl. Work was not certified by the Architect." 12. Moreover, the witness also stated that the recommendations of the architect were binding on both the parties: "It is true to suggest that whatever architect had recommended during the contract period was binding on both the parties." 13. Having regard to the above admission and factual position, it is evident that the claim under the above two items of work as set out in the suit claim could not have been granted. The High Court erred in holding that all the bills were certified by the architect. After taking into account the payments which have been made, the total amount which is due and payable to the respondent has been worked out as follows: ? Bills Rs. 3,57,200.00 Rs. 2,47,780.00 Rs. 15,254.00 ------------------- Rs. 6,20,234.00 ------------------- Payments Rs. 4,04,480.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 81,458.00 ------------------- Rs. 5,85,938.00 ------------------- Dues Rs. 6,20,234.00 Rs. 5,85,938.00 ------------------- Rs. 34,296.00 ------------------- ? 14. Hence, in our view, it is the above amount which is due and payable. 15. Bills Rs. 3,57,200.00 Rs. 2,47,780.00 Rs. 15,254.00 ------------------- Rs. 6,20,234.00 ------------------- Payments Rs. 4,04,480.00 Rs. 1,00,000.00 Rs. 81,458.00 ------------------- Rs. 5,85,938.00 ------------------- Dues Rs. 6,20,234.00 Rs. 5,85,938.00 ------------------- Rs. 34,296.00 ------------------- ? 14. Hence, in our view, it is the above amount which is due and payable. 15. The suit was instituted in 1992. Having due regard to the claim of interest as well as costs, we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 should be paid to the respondent in full discharge of the claims, dues and outstandings. 16. The respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,50,000 out of the amount which has been deposited before the Trial court. 17. The appellant would be at liberty to withdraw the balance amount together with accrued interest. 18. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.