JUDGMENT : HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J. 1. The defendant in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff company is entitled to complete the construction work in terms of the agreement dated 20.8.1997 and for a further declaration that the letter of termination of contract is illegal and void, permanent injunction and for recovery of money has preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated May 18, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 4th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 53 of 1999. 2. The plaintiff's case in a nutshell runs thus: The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company carrying on the business of builders and contractors. The defendant No. 1 being the promoters and builders of ownership apartment intended to construct a 5 storied building and invited offers from interested contractors. The plaintiff gave an offer by letters dated 08.7.1997 and 18.8.1997 for construction of a 5 storied building and the defendant accepted the said offer by a letter dated August 20, 1997 with certain reservations. The plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant as security deposit as per the agreed terms and conditions of the contract on August 20, 1997. The defendant No. 3 was appointed as an Architect and the plaintiff was supposed to work as per the advice and instruction and supervision of the said Architect. The Architect has no authority to terminate the contractor between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 as per the agreed terms and conditions. The plaintiff recruited various staffs and advanced money to suppliers of materials so that the construction work can be completed within the scheduled time limit. The construction work continued and the plaintiff raised running bills up to the 8th bill and Mr. Amitabha Mitra, the Engineer who was assigned the job of supervision by the defendant No. 3 issued a letter to the plaintiff dated September 1, 1998 stating that he was satisfied with the work of construction carried on at the site and the quality of materials used therein. After the construction work started, the plaintiff was verbally informed by the promoter that the plaintiff was not required to do finishing work of project and the plaintiff was assured of reimbursement in the event he suffers any loss. After the construction work started, the plaintiff was verbally informed by the promoter that the plaintiff was not required to do finishing work of project and the plaintiff was assured of reimbursement in the event he suffers any loss. The plaintiff told the defendant that if they have to do the structural job only it will not be possible for them to offer discount of 7.75% and the rate would be Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. for the structural job and not at the reduced rate of Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. Both the Architect and the promoter after a verbal discussion accepted such offer and the bills were made accordingly and the Architect checked and forwarded the running account bills up to Bill No. 8 dated 18.8.1998 and forwarded them for payment. The defendants raised dispute regarding the bills submitted by the plaintiff. 3. The defendants without making any joint inspection of the works done by the plaintiff and without paying the bills was trying to engage another contractor for the balance works at the site. 4. The defendant by a letter dated April 20, 1999 rescinded the contract and by several letters questioned the bill Nos. 1 to 11 dated November 30, 1998. The plaintiff suffered substantial loss as he was not allowed to complete the project. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the money amounting to Rs. 6,79,909/- for works done including earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff prayed for a decree declaring that the plaintiff company is entitled to complete the works of construction with the further declaration that the letter of termination of contract dated 20.4.1998 issued by the defendant No. 3 is illegal, invalid and inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff. An alternative relief in the form of damages amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- was also prayed for with a further declaration that the defendant is not entitled to deduct 7.75% rebate as per the offers submitted by the plaintiff. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and its men and agents from doing any part of the construction works of the building in respect of 'A' schedule property was also prayed for along with other consequential reliefs. 5. The defendant No. 2 contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and its men and agents from doing any part of the construction works of the building in respect of 'A' schedule property was also prayed for along with other consequential reliefs. 5. The defendant No. 2 contested the said suit by filing a written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint. It was contended by the said defendant that the plaintiff was appointed for construction of the proposed 5 storied building including finishing working at premises No. 23 Daw Temple Road under the control and guidance of the Architect i.e. the defendant No. 3. The plaintiff was allowed 18 months time for completion of the structural portion of the building commencing from 20th August 1997. The plaintiff failed to complete even 1/4th of the total construction work during the period within which the construction was agreed to be completed. It was further stated therein that since the plaintiff was carrying on construction with inferior quality of building materials, defective equipment and unskilled labourers, the Architect was compelled to terminate the contract by virtue of Clause 2(a) of the contract dated 20.8.1997. It was alleged by the defendants that the plaintiffs were involved in the conspiracy with Sri Amitabha Mitra who is an employee of the defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff collusively manufactured papers to establish that the materials used for construction purpose were of good quality. It was also contended by the defendants in the written statement that the plaintiffs did not issue any formal bills and the payments were made by the defendants as advance and/or part payment. Since the plaintiff failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period, the landlord took up the charge of completing the remaining construction of the building in terms of the agreement dated 04.9.1996. 6. The defendants have also set up a counterclaim alleging that the defendant has made payment of Rs. 1,37,285/- in excess of the actual dues of the plaintiff on account of the said construction work. The defendant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- together with statutory interest there on and a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards loss and damages sustained by the defendant because of the delay in the construction work and also since the work was done with inferior quality of building materials and by engaging incompetent workmen and using defective equipments. 7. 10,00,000/- together with statutory interest there on and a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards loss and damages sustained by the defendant because of the delay in the construction work and also since the work was done with inferior quality of building materials and by engaging incompetent workmen and using defective equipments. 7. The Trial Court by a judgment and decree dated May 18, 2009 decreed the said suit on contest upon holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 6,79,909/- from the defendant including the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the sum of Rs. 6,70,909/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of depositing requisite stamp duty. The defendant was directed to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the judgment failing which the plaintiff was given liberty to put the decree into execution. The counter claim of the defendant was also dismissed. 8. The defendant preferred the instant appeal against the decree passed in the suit thereby allowing the plaintiffs claim for recovery of money. 9. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the rate of Rs. 415/- was agreed upon by the parties and the learned court below erred in law by not returning any finding on the revised rate as claimed by the plaintiffs/respondent herein. Mr. Chatterjee, further submits that the report of the Engineer Commissioner is baseless as the Engineer Commissioner was not allowed to inspect the building from inside. He further submits that the payments were made as advance and/or part payment and the plaintiff did not raise any bills. He also submits that unless a proper measurement of the work allegedly done by the plaintiff is made, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to any further sum on account of the work allegedly done by him. 10. He further submits that the plaintiff did the construction work with inferior quality materials and by employing unskilled laborers and defective equipments. He submits that the plaintiff failed and neglected to complete even 1/4th of the construction work within the time agreed upon by the parties for completion of the entire construction work. 10. He further submits that the plaintiff did the construction work with inferior quality materials and by employing unskilled laborers and defective equipments. He submits that the plaintiff failed and neglected to complete even 1/4th of the construction work within the time agreed upon by the parties for completion of the entire construction work. He thus submits that for the aforesaid act of the plaintiff, the defendant has suffered huge loss and is entitled to an amount as claimed by the defendant in the counterclaim set up by the defendants. 11. Mr. Puran Chand Valechha, being authorised by the respondent company to defend the instant appeal appeared in person. He submitted that he was engaged to carry on the construction work under the supervision of an Architect. He started the construction work and proceeded to carry on with the same in terms of sanctioned plan and as per the instruction and guidance of the Engineer appointed by the Architect who is the defendant No. 3 herein. He further submitted that he undertook the construction work with good quality materials and by employing skilled labourers and modern equipments. He also submitted that at one point of time during the casting of the second floor of the building the non-technical person of the defendant interfered with the construction work and the plaintiff company was compelled to carry out the work of casting according to the direction of the said persons at the site. He submitted that in the midst of construction work the plaintiff was told to do the structural work only and not to do the finishing work of the project. As such the plaintiff told the defendants clearly that in such event the plaintiff will not be able to offer discount of 7.75% and the rate of the structural job would be Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. and not Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. It has been submitted by Mr. Puran Chand Valechha that the defendant accepted the rate of Rs. 450/- for the structural job only and made payments accepting that rate. He further submitted that Mr. Amitabha Mitra the Engineer appointed by the Architect certified that the plaintiff was carrying on with the construction work with good quality materials and in terms of the drawing and instruction of the Architect. 450/- for the structural job only and made payments accepting that rate. He further submitted that Mr. Amitabha Mitra the Engineer appointed by the Architect certified that the plaintiff was carrying on with the construction work with good quality materials and in terms of the drawing and instruction of the Architect. Thus, he concluded by submitting that the defendant terminated the contract illegally for which the plaintiff company suffered losses and is entitled to damages. He submits that the learned court below was perfectly justified in passing a decree in his favour and prays for dismissal of the instant appeal as the same is devoid of any merit. 12. Admittedly the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement for construction of a five storied building with the plaintiff. The plaintiff by a letter dated July 8, 1997 being Exhibit No. 2 quoted the rate for carrying on the construction work. It was mentioned in the said letter that the work will be done strictly as per the sanctioned plan and the drawing provided by the defendant No. 1 company. It appears from the rates quoted by the plaintiff in the letter dated July 8, 1997 that the plaintiff will charge Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. for carrying on the construction work. The defendant by a letter dated August 20, 1997 being Exhibit-4 accepted the offer made by the plaintiff vide letters dated 8.7.1997 and 18.8.1997 with certain reservation and alterations. In the letters dated 08.7.1997 and 18.8.1997 the specification of work to be done and the materials to be used while carrying on the construction was specifically mentioned therein. From the nature of work specified in the said letters it is evident that the plaintiff was asked to do the construction work including the finishing works. In the letter dated August 20, 1997 issued by the defendant it has been mentioned that the specifications offered by the plaintiff vide letters dated 08.7.1997 and 18.8.1997 as well as those mentioned in the defendant's letter dated August 20, 1997 are subject to modifications from time to time according to the requirement of the intending purchasers of the flats of the building in question. The plaintiff and the defendant company entered into an agreement dated August 20, 1997 being Exhibit-4(a) wherein the parties agreed the rate to be Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. The plaintiff and the defendant company entered into an agreement dated August 20, 1997 being Exhibit-4(a) wherein the parties agreed the rate to be Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. of the constructed area complete with finishing works as specified in the said agreement. From the items of the work specified in the said agreement dated August 20, 1997, it appears that the finishing works were also included therein. Subsequent to the initiation of the construction work by the plaintiff, the defendant asked the plaintiff to do the structural work only and he was asked not to do any finishing work. 13. There is a dispute between the parties as to the rate which, the plaintiff will be entitled to for carrying on the work of construction excluding the finishing work. The defence case is that the rate between the parties was fixed at Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. and the plaintiff shall not be entitled to charge in excess of that rate as the rate was an agreed one. On the other hand, the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff initially offered the rate of Rs. 450/- per sq. Ft. Subsequently, he agreed to reduce such rate by 7.75% and offered the rate of Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. accordingly to the plaintiff, this reduction in the rate was a conditional one, if the plaintiff was allowed to do the entire work including the finishing work. The plaintiff asserts that since he was not allowed to do the finishing work, he agreed to do the structural work only at the rate of Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. which was also accepted by the defendant. It appears from the rate agreed upon between the parties vide agreement dated August 20,1997 being Exhibit-4(a) that the rate of Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. of the constructed area complete with finishing works as specified in the agreement was agreed upon between the parties. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the case of allowing a discount of 7.75% is without any basis and the rate of Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. was agreed upon between the parties and such agreed rate is not subject to variation. However, it appears from the letter dated October 28, 1998 being Exhibit-21 that the plaintiff admitted the fact of reduction of 7.77% on the initial offer of Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. 415/- per sq. ft. was agreed upon between the parties and such agreed rate is not subject to variation. However, it appears from the letter dated October 28, 1998 being Exhibit-21 that the plaintiff admitted the fact of reduction of 7.77% on the initial offer of Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. given by the plaintiffs. 14. The parties agreed to the rate of Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. in the constructed area with finishing works that was specified in the agreement dated August 20, 1997. The defendant proposed for variation of the said agreement to the extent that the plaintiff will not have to do the finishing work. The plaintiff initially quoted the rate of Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. But subsequently allowed a reduction of 7.75% of the said rate as the plaintiff will have to perform the entire construction work including the finishing work. The defendant company in his letter dated August 20, 1997 being Exhibit-4 has admitted that in the event of modification of the finishing works, the rate of construction charges is liable to be altered accordingly. Thus, it is evident that the parties agreed to alter and/or modify the rate agreed upon in the event of modifications of the finishing works. It was not at all the intention of the parties that the rate of Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. will be a fixed rate irrespective of any alteration in the nature of the work to be carried out by the plaintiff. 15. In the instant case, the agreement dated August 20, 1997 was modified by requiring the plaintiff to do the construction work excluding the finishing work. Then in such event the rate of Rs. 415/- per sq. ft. as agreed upon between the parties is also subject to modification. The cost of construction of structural work is more than that of finishing work. The contractor entrusted with the structural work including the finishing work can agree to a lower rate per sq. ft. than that when contractor is entrusted to do the structural work only. The defendant firm did not adduce any evidence as to the rate which was agreed upon between the parties after the nature of the work under the contract was altered subsequently. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the case made out by the plaintiff on the revised rate per sq. ft. The defendant firm did not adduce any evidence as to the rate which was agreed upon between the parties after the nature of the work under the contract was altered subsequently. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the case made out by the plaintiff on the revised rate per sq. ft. is more acceptable than the case made out by the defendant that the rate was fixed irrespective of the fact as to whether the plaintiff will have to perform the structural work only or the structural work including the finishing work. 16. The defendant appointed the Architect to supervise the construction work. The said Architect entrusted the job of supervision to Mr. Amitabha Mitra an Engineer. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff started the construction work with inferior quality of building materials, defective equipment and unskilled laborers. And as such the Architect was constrained to terminate the contract of the plaintiff. The defendant suffered loss due to the delay in completing the construction of the structural work only. It is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiffs even failed to complete 1/4th of the total construction work during the stipulated time limit. Since the plaintiff failed to complete the construction work the landlord took up the charge of completing the remaining construction, the defendant firm by way of counter claim prayed for a decree declaring that the defendant No. 2 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- together with statutory interest thereon and a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards loss and damages sustained by the defendant because of delay in construction work and also for works done with inferior quality of building materials, defective equipments and by engaging incompetent workmen. 17. The learned Trial Judge by the judgment impugned herein dismissed the counterclaim set up by the defendant in the written statement upon holding that the allegations of using inferior quality of building materials, engaging incompetent workmen and defective equipment has not been proved. 18. The defendant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the decree passed in the plaintiff's suit but has not preferred any appeal against the dismissal of his counter claim. 19. It has been argued by Mr. Chatterjee that in the ordering portion it has not been indicated that the counterclaim of the defendant has been dismissed. 18. The defendant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the decree passed in the plaintiff's suit but has not preferred any appeal against the dismissal of his counter claim. 19. It has been argued by Mr. Chatterjee that in the ordering portion it has not been indicated that the counterclaim of the defendant has been dismissed. He submits that since no decree was drawn up with regard to the dismissal of his counterclaim, the appellants could not prefer any appeal against dismissal of the counterclaim. He submits that there was no decree passed in the eye of law and an appeal under Section 96 of the Code lies only against a decree. 20. The learned Trial Judge specifically dealt with the case of the defendants/appellants herein as made out in the counterclaim and the defence case of the plaintiff/respondent herein against such counterclaim and have dismissed the counterclaim. The rights of the parties with regard to the counterclaim was conclusively determined by the learned Court below. Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines decree as:- (2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within [3].........section 144, but shall not include - (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation - A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit, it may be partly preliminary and partly final. 21. Section 2(9) of the Code defines judgment as:- (9) "judgment" means the statement given by the judge of the grounds of a decree or order. 22. Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code lays down that the Court will decide the issues separately unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. Preparation of a decree is nothing but only a ministerial job. 22. Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code lays down that the Court will decide the issues separately unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. Preparation of a decree is nothing but only a ministerial job. Order 20 Rule 6A of the Code provides that an appeal may be preferred against the decree without filing a copy of the decree and in such a case the copy made available to the party by the court shall for the purpose of Rule 1 of Order 41 be treated as the decree. Mere omission either to draw up a decree or to record in the ordering portion of the judgment that the counterclaim is dismissed will not bring it outside the purview of the decree. 23. In the instant case the learned Trial Judge conclusively decided the rights of the parties relating to counterclaim and in view of our findings recorded hereinabove, the argument put forward by Mr. Chatterjee with regard to inability to prefer an appeal against dismissal of counterclaim cannot be accepted by us. Mr. Chatterjee, further argues that even if no appeal is preferred against dismissal of the counterclaim, the appellant in the instant appeal is not debarred from raising a challenge to the impugned decree on the ground that the rescission of the plaintiff's contract was justified as he did the job by using defective equipments, inferior quality of materials and by employing inefficient workmen. 24. Order 8 Rule 6 A (2) of the code of Civil Procedure provides that a counterclaim shall have the same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counterclaim. Order 8 Rule 6 A (4) of the Code provides that the counterclaim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints. Order 8 Rule 6 A (3) of the Code provides that the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counterclaim of the defendant. Order 8 Rule 6-D of the code provides that if in any case in which the defendant set up a counter claim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counterclaim may nevertheless be proceeded with. Order 8 Rule 6-D of the code provides that if in any case in which the defendant set up a counter claim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counterclaim may nevertheless be proceeded with. Thus, the counterclaim of the defendant is as good as a suit and the dismissal of the counterclaim is a decree. 25. The suit as well as the counterclaim were heard analogously and the learned Trial Judge by a common judgment decreed the suit and dismissed the counterclaim. But, separate decrees with regard to the decree passed in the suit as well as the dismissal of counterclaim are required to be passed. In the suit as well as in the counterclaim the case of the defendants/appellant was that the plaintiff did the construction work with inferior quality of building materials, by employing in efficient workmen and using defective equipments. The learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings as well as the evidences on record dismissed the counterclaim. Thus, the decree dismissing the counterclaim would operate as res-judicata in the instant appeal against the decree passed in the plaintiff's suit with regard to the issues raised in the counterclaim. The non filing of an appeal against the determination in the counterclaim filed by the defendant/appellants herein has made the determinations as made therein final and as such the rule of res-judicata or principles analogous thereto can be involved and applied in this case. In this regard reliance may be placed on the judgment in the case of Smt. Katya Bala Dasi and Another vs. Nilmoni Pakhira and Others, (1986) 2 Cal. L.J. 1. 26. In an appeal against the decree passed on the plaintiff's suit, the appellant is trying to challenge the decree of dismissal of the counterclaim in an indirect way by contending that the learned Trial Judge was not justified in holding that the defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiff executed the work by using inferior materials, employing inefficient workmen and also using defective equipments. The defendants have allowed the issue regarding counterclaim to become final by not preferring any appeal there from and cannot in the instant appeal reopen such issue. 27. The defendants have allowed the issue regarding counterclaim to become final by not preferring any appeal there from and cannot in the instant appeal reopen such issue. 27. Furthermore, Sri Amitabha Mitra the Engineer entrusted by the defendant No. 3 i.e. the Architect to supervise the construction work of the plaintiff has certified that the construction at the site in question was done as per the sanctioned plan and the sanctioned drawing and the instruction of the Architect. The Engineer was very much satisfied by the mode of operation of the plaintiff company, the quality of materials were also checked by the Engineer thoroughly and found to be up to the mark. The staffs and Engineers of the plaintiff company also followed the instruction of the Engineer. The said Engineer also certified that the little defects which were noticed by him during second floor casting were also rectified by the plaintiff company by undertaking the grouting work as suggested by the Architect. Though the defendants have made out a case of collusion between the plaintiff company and the said Engineer but the defendants have failed to establish such allegation by adducing any evidence whatsoever to establish such defence. Thus, it is evident that the plaintiff performed the work which was entrusted to him to the satisfaction of the Engineer, who was entrusted to supervise the construction work of the plaintiff by the Architect. The plaintiff started the construction work within 15 days from execution of the agreement. In terms of the said contract the plaintiff was to complete the construction work on March 5, 1999. The plaintiff initially was entrusted to do the construction work including the finishing works. Subsequently, in the midst of the construction work the defendant directed the plaintiff to do the structural work only. The original agreement was thus modified and the nature of work agreed upon initially also was modified. The plaintiff was allowed to do the construction work even beyond the stipulated time limit and the agreement between the parties was rescinded by a letter dated April 20, 1999 being Exhibit- 11 i.e. after expiry of the period fixed in the original agreement. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the time was the essence of the contract. 28. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the time was the essence of the contract. 28. The Engineer Commissioner was appointed by the court below to inspect the construction carried out by the plaintiff and to submit a report. The Engineer Commissioner after holding inspection submitted a report as to the extent of work undertaken by the plaintiff. The said Engineer submitted the report by relying on the sanction plan. The Engineer appointed by the Architect, admitted that the plaintiff carried on the construction work as per the sanctioned plan and the sanctioned drawing. The report of the Commissioner cannot be said to be faulty as the same was based on the sanctioned plan. The learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence of the Commissioner accepted the Commissioner's report. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the learned Trial Judge. 29. The claim of the plaintiff on account of various rates has been specifically mentioned in schedule-B. The total details of the total payment received were specifically given in Schedule-D. The amount due to the plaintiff was mentioned in Schedule-C. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as he was not allowed to complete the total construction work. The learned Trial Judge after considering Clause 13 of Exhibit 4(a) held that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The plaintiff has accepted the said finding of the learned Trial Judge and has not assailed the rejection of his prayer for recovery of money on account of damages before this court. As such the said finding of the learned Trial Judge also do not call for any interference by us. The Engineer Commissioner has indicated in his report that the building is a five storied RCC framed structure with RCC roofs building. The total built up area of the building was 18177 sq. ft. but the plaintiff did not execute the total job. The Commissioner applied the PWD rate for building works in the job executed by the plaintiff and was of the view that the cost of the work executed by the plaintiff is Rs. 27,47,000/. It appears from the plaint that the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 23,66,726.30/- towards the case of construction work already executed by him including a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of damages. 27,47,000/. It appears from the plaint that the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 23,66,726.30/- towards the case of construction work already executed by him including a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of damages. After deducting the said sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the claim made by the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff's claim comes to Rs. 22,16,726.30/-. Thus, it appears that the claim made by the plaintiff on account of cost of construction is well below the PWD rate for such construction. The learned Trial Judge after taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- as claimed by him held that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 6,79,909/- from the defendant including the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Trial Judge further held that the plaintiff is entitled to get interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the said sum. There is no illegality and/or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. The instant appeal is thus dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below. 30. There shall be however no order as to costs. I agree – Harish Tandon, J. Later: 31. After the judgment is delivered, the appellant prayed for stay of operation of the order. Upon considering the above we do not find that it is a fit case, where such prayer can be allowed. Hence the prayer for stay is rejected.