JUDGMENT : (A.V. Sesha Sai, J.) These two Appeal Suits, preferred under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, one by the plaintiff and another by the defendants, are directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2017 in O.S.No.109 of 2002, passed by the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the parties as per their status in the cause title in the suit. 3. O.S.No.109 of 2002 came to be instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,06,10,269/- together with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 4. Vide Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2017, the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, decreed the suit in part for a sum of Rs.10,35,514/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. 5. A.S.No.477 of 2008, filed by the plaintiff, is against the disallowed claim and A.S.No.230 of 2009, filed by the defendants, is against the entire decree. 6. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned senior counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.477 of 2008 and respondent in A.S.No.230 of 2009 and Sri P.Bala Swamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents in A.S.No.477 of 2008 and appellants in A.S.No.230 of 2009, apart from perusing the material available on record. 7. Submissions/Contentions of Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel: 1) The Judgment and Decree rendered by the learned Trial Judge, to the extent the same went against the plaintiff, are erroneous, contrary to law and vitiated by failure to consider the evidence available on record from proper perspective. 2) Having categorically found that the defendant No.1 – State Government passed orders hurriedly and without application of mind, the Trial Court grossly erred in decreeing the suit in part and should have completely decreed the suit. 3) The learned Trial Judge grossly erred in placing reliance on Ex.B.33 – Expert Report dated 15.11.1997, as the same failed to take into consideration the relevant factors such as report of Bapatla Engineering College which clearly establishes that the soil in the entire reach is marine clay soil. 3) The learned Trial Judge grossly erred in placing reliance on Ex.B.33 – Expert Report dated 15.11.1997, as the same failed to take into consideration the relevant factors such as report of Bapatla Engineering College which clearly establishes that the soil in the entire reach is marine clay soil. 4) The learned Trial Judge ought to have taken into consideration the report of the Superintending Engineer and the recommendations contained therein for arriving at the conclusions. 5) The learned Trial Judge failed to see that even in Ex.B.33 report dated 15.11.1997 of the Expert Committee No.2, it was concluded that the entire soil of the Reach is marine clay soil which is a different nature of soil and as such the plaintiff shall be paid at the rates applicable to such soils. 6) The learned Additional District Judge ought to have seen that it would be very much evident from Ex.B.17 report of the Superintending Engineer, CERP Circle, Chirala that the trend of rates during 1991- 1992 in respect of similar items of works are very much in excess, varying between Rs.380/- to Rs.650/- per 10 cubic meters, besides being no response for some other works and thus the rates claimed by the plaintiff cannot be said to be on the higher side. 7) The conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff is entitled only as per the recommendations of the Expert Committee is not correct and that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have noticed that even on the aforesaid rate fixed by the Committee, the plaintiff is entitled for the tender excess. 8) The learned Trial Judge erred in awarding interest on the sum found payable from the date of suit and ought to have directed payment of interest from the date of completion of work during 1991-1992 and not from the date of suit. 9) While awarding additional sum of Rs.9.22 lakhs the Trial Court had taken the tender excess into consideration but while refixation of rates consequent upon the second Expert Committee, the Trial Court declined to follow the said tender excess. 8. Submissions/Contentions of Sri P.Bala Swamy, learned Government Pleader: 1) The Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional District Judge are highly erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 8. Submissions/Contentions of Sri P.Bala Swamy, learned Government Pleader: 1) The Judgment and Decree of the learned Additional District Judge are highly erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2) The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record from proper perspective. 3) The Trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff did not complete the work within the period prescribed initially and the time was extended by the Superintending Engineer up to 30.06.1992. 4) The learned Additional District Judge ought to have seen that as per Clause 11.3 of Section 2 of Volume 1 of the agreement, the contractor is bound to inspect the site personally before tendering the work including collection of information regarding nature of work and the sub-surface conditions, hydrological and climatical conditions as such the plaintiff/contractor will have to suffer in case of misjudgement on the part of the contractor. 5) The plaintiff has no right to claim the amount solely on the basis of the report of the reconstituted committee, appointed by the Government. 6) The Trial Court grossly erred in placing heavy reliance on Ex.B.33 – Expert Committee report dated 15.11.1997 and the learned Additional District Judge should have held that the said report is only recommendatory in nature. 7) The learned Additional District Judge grossly erred in holding that the orders passed by the Government vide Ex.A.8 – Memo dated 07.06.1999 would not disclose the basis on which the Secretary to Government came to the conclusion to reject the proposal. 8) The learned Judge ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. 9) The learned Additional District Judge ought to have seen that since the period of contract being less than 12 months, in view of Clause 34 of the agreement, plaintiff would not be entitled for any price adjustment. 9. In the light of the pleadings and the contentions of the learned counsel, set out supra, the following points emerge for consideration of this Court in these Appeal Suits under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure: “1. Whether the Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case is sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the Judgment of the Trial Court, decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs.10,35,514/- is justified or is liable to be set aside? 3. Whether the Judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case is sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the Judgment of the Trial Court, decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs.10,35,514/- is justified or is liable to be set aside? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a total sum of Rs.28,26,822/- in view of the reports of the officers? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest at 24% from 30.06.1992 i.e., the date on which the plaintiff handed over the site to the defendants after completion of work till the date of realisation? 5. Whether the plaintiff or defendants are entitled for any relief from this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure?” 10. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and is a class–II contractor. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Guntur – defendant No.3 invited the tenders for “Improvements to Romperu Right Arm Drain from Km.31.70 to Km.33.00 (package No.189 under Cyclone Emergency Reconstruction Project (CERP) Programme)”. Plaintiff filed the tender and the same was accepted, an agreement was entered into on 11.04.1991 for a sum of Rs.21,86,950/- vide Ex.A.1, as against the estimated value of Rs.15,33,069/- i.e., 42.78% excess over the estimate. 11. The defendants handed over the site to the plaintiff on 11.04.1991 and the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Guntur – defendant No.3 extended the time till 30.06.1992. Though, the initial period of contract was four months, the fact remains that the plaintiff completed the work by 30.06.1992 i.e., within the extended period. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the course of execution of work, plaintiff encountered excavation of soil work, which was different from the one set out in the agreement/tender and the type of soil was marine soil, which was never contemplated under the agreement. As per the contract Ex.A.1 equivalent to Ex.B.15 agreement, the description of work being “Earth work excavation from drain in loomy and clayey soils like black cotton soils, red earth and ordinary gravel both in dry and wet conditions and depositing on banks as shown in the drawings including all leads and lifts, cross bunding, dewatering during execution etc.,”. As per the contract Ex.A.1 equivalent to Ex.B.15 agreement, the description of work being “Earth work excavation from drain in loomy and clayey soils like black cotton soils, red earth and ordinary gravel both in dry and wet conditions and depositing on banks as shown in the drawings including all leads and lifts, cross bunding, dewatering during execution etc.,”. It is the further case of the plaintiff that during the course of execution, the plaintiff had to deal with quite a different type of soil i.e., watery liquid, sticky, plasticity, wooby and slurry with less gravity, involving tedious and laborious labour component, causing unmanageable and un-workable circumstances for its removal and depositing on banks. Plaintiff submitted Ex.B.1 representation dated 20.09.1991 to the defendant Nos.2 & 3 and stated that the plaintiff incurred extra expenditure at the rate of Rs.636.45 paise per 10 cubic meters for the excavation of drain bed in left bank and Rs.739.00 per 10 cubic meters in the right bank and sought for payment of Rs.60,46,767/- - Rs.22,29,116/- (amount already paid) = Rs.38,17,651/-. 12. By way of Ex.B.16 – letter No.969 M dated 30.09.1991 defendant No.4 – Executive Engineer APHM & ECERP Division, Chirala recommended to defendant No.3 – Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Guntur for payment at the rate of Rs.395.77 per 10 cubic meters and forming right standard bank ¼ kms at the rate of Rs.429.76 paise per 10 cubic meters. The defendant No.3 in turn submitted the same to the defendant No.2 – Chief Engineer for approval with his recommendation vide Ex.B.17 letter No.327 CE dated 31.12.1991. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted Ex.A.2 representation dated 25.11.1992. Defendant No.2 – Chief Engineer submitted the observed data to the defendant No.1 – Government for approval vide Ex.B.18 letter dated 31.12.1992. According to the plaintiff the said rates are exclusive of labour amenities and labour importation (13%) and tender premium (+42.78%). The particulars of the said recommendations are as follows: 1) Earth work excavation from the bed drain with six extra leads and two extra lifts for forming left bank as per approved drawings or as directed by Engineer-in-charge. 2) Earth work excavation from the drain bed of the drain with a lead of 0.25 kms including sanctioning etc., complete for forming right side standard bank as per approved drawings or as directed by the Engineer-incharge Rs.429.80/- per 10 cubic meters. 13. 2) Earth work excavation from the drain bed of the drain with a lead of 0.25 kms including sanctioning etc., complete for forming right side standard bank as per approved drawings or as directed by the Engineer-incharge Rs.429.80/- per 10 cubic meters. 13. Defendant No.1 – State Government vide Ex.B.5 memo No.1749/DR.3/92-2 dated 01.03.1993 called for certain information on the proposal submitted by the defendant No.2 – Chief Engineer. Defendant No.4 – Executive Engineer vide Ex.B.6 reply dated 12.11.1994 addressed to defendant No.3 – Superintending Engineer clarified that as per the previous record the contractor was paid additional rates based on observed data and recommended for consideration. Responding to Ex.B.22 – Government Memo dated 29.11.1994, defendant No.2 – Chief Engineer sent recommendations for payment of the observed data to defendant No.1 – Government vide Ex.B.32 Lr.No.CE/Vytp/OT(G)/AE-1/P.No.189/92 dated 16.06.1995. 14. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 – State Government vide G.O.R.T.No.898 dated 02.09.1995 (Ex.B.27) constituted an Expert Committee and the said Expert Committee submitted Ex.B.34 report dated 18.12.1995, recommending payment of Rs.9,22,660/-. According to the plaintiff there is a basic flaw in the said report wherein the amount was determined with reference to contract work done in 1973-1974 and in the said work, contractor had not tackled middle reach of drain and worked only in the either side of the drain which is not the case/situation in the present contractor, despite the said variation, the same amount was determined by updating to 1991-1992 and added premium of 42.78% excess and 13% labour amenities and labour imputations. 15. The State Government vide Ex.A.3 – G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 29.03.1996 sanctioned the aforesaid amount. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that it caused legal notice dated 09.01.1997, representations dated 20.06.1996 and 29.05.1997, pointing out the mistakes in Ex.B.34 report dated 18.12.1995. Thereafter, vide Ex.A.4 – G.O.R.T.No.1081 dated 28.08.1997, the State Government reconstituted the Expert Committee with an observation that the Committee should afford opportunity to the plaintiff to represent its case. Plaintiff submitted Ex.A.5 representation dated 03.09.1997 to the Expert Committee and also submitted Ex.A.7 representation dated 05.12.1997 to the Government – defendant No.1, requesting to allow tender percentage as per the observed data. 16. The reconstituted Expert Committee submitted Ex.B.33 report dated 18.08.1997 recommending Rs.10,35,514/-. Plaintiff submitted Ex.A.5 representation dated 03.09.1997 to the Expert Committee and also submitted Ex.A.7 representation dated 05.12.1997 to the Government – defendant No.1, requesting to allow tender percentage as per the observed data. 16. The reconstituted Expert Committee submitted Ex.B.33 report dated 18.08.1997 recommending Rs.10,35,514/-. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff the reconstituted committee erroneously recommended compensation of 20% excess as against 42.78% excess claimed by the plaintiff towards tender premium and the same missed the attention of the second Committee while calculating the amount. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the first Committee allowed the entire tender premium of 42.78% while the reconstituted Committee recommended only 20% excess premium and this also missed during the course of calculations. 17. According to the plaintiff, it was brought to the notice of the defendants that in respect of Garisapudi under tunnel work where there was no contemplation of new item of work either in the estimate or in agreement, 124.31% excess was allowed and same was approved by the Government vide Memo No.7105/DR.3/93-8, dated 16.12.1993, which was referred by the defendant No.2 – Chief Engineer under Ex.B.37 letter dated 10.09.1998. 18. It is also the case of the plaintiff that after several requests, the issue was referred to Chief Technical Examiner, who recommended the payment of tender premium on observed data, as was allowed in similar circumstances and recommended to pay a sum of Rs.28,26,822/- vide his report dated 07.11.1998. 19. The defendant No.1 – State Government vide Ex.A.8 – Memo dated 07.06.1999 rejected the claim of the plaintiff and plaintiff caused Section 80 notice (Ex.A.9) dated 30.10.2001. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement interalia contending that the plaintiff had the obligation to execute the excess of items of work and the plaintiff completed the work in view of Clause 32.2 of the general conditions of contract and the plaintiff would not be entitled for any relief. 20. On the basis of pleadings available on record, the Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: 1) Whether the extra items of work done by the plaintiff do come under Clause 32.2 General and Special Conditions of Work? 2) Whether the rejection of recommendations of Expert Committee for payment of Rs.28.02 lakhs to the plaintiff is tenable? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount? 4) To what relief? 21. 2) Whether the rejection of recommendations of Expert Committee for payment of Rs.28.02 lakhs to the plaintiff is tenable? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount? 4) To what relief? 21. During the course of trial, in order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined PW.1, Managing partner of the firm and filed Ex.A.1 to A.15 and whereas on the defendants’ side the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Chirala – defendant No.4 was examined as Dw.1 and Ex.B.1 to B.37 were marked. 22. The essence of the submissions of the learned counsel, Sri J.Prabhakar is as follows: 1) Trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of Ex.B.33 – Lr.No.CE/Dr/24/CERP, dated 15.11.1997 addressed to the Government (Expert Committee – II Report) and the second Committee which recommended 20% additional in the form of premium erroneously failed to add the same while calculating the amount. 2) In similar case, the Chief Engineer vide Ex.B.37 granted the amount by adding premium of 124.31%. 3) The Trial Court ought to have granted commercial rate of interest at the rate of 24% from the date of Ex.B.33 – Expert Committee report or at least from Section 80 notice i.e., 30.10.2001. 4) The Trial Court grossly erred in not taking into account the reports of the Superintending Engineer. 23. The sum and substance of the submissions of Sri P.Bala Swamy, learned Government Pleader are as follows: 1) Suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground of limitation as the work was completed on 30.06.1992 but the suit was instituted on 25.04.2002 i.e., nearly after ten (10) years. 2) Ex.B.33 – Lr.No.CE/Dr/24/CERP, dated 15.11.1997 addressed to the Government (Expert Committee – II Report) is only recommendatory in nature, as such the same is not binding in the Government and accordingly, the Government vide Ex.A.8 Memo dated 07.06.1999 rejected the claim. 3) Plaintiff is not entitled for any price adjustment in view of Clause 34 of Ex.A.1 agreement dated 11.04.1991 and according to which in respect of any contract whose period is below twelve (12) months, the contractor is not entitled for any price adjustment. 24. 3) Plaintiff is not entitled for any price adjustment in view of Clause 34 of Ex.A.1 agreement dated 11.04.1991 and according to which in respect of any contract whose period is below twelve (12) months, the contractor is not entitled for any price adjustment. 24. The information available before this Court, in vivid and candid terms, discloses that in response to Ex.B.22 – Government Memo dated 29.11.1994, the Chief Engineer, Dowleswaram vide Ex.B.32 dated 16.06.1995 recommended payments on the basis of observed data and the last paragraph of the same reads as follows: “Under the circumstances explained above and in view of the orduous nature of work carried out by the contractors by spending huge amounts, I request the Government to kindly to consider the case sympathetically and issue necessary orders in this matter.” 25. While making the above recommendations, Chief Engineer – defendant No.2 took into consideration the opinions of the following officers: “1. Sri R.Narayan Reddy, Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Chirala in his Lr.No.969 M dt.15.9.91 stated that the soils met with are altogether different from what has been contemplated in the estimate and agreement. 2. Sri B.Giraiah, Superintending Engineer, CERP Circle, Chirala in his Lr.No.327 CE dt.31.12.91 has stated that the soils met with being marine clays are altogether different than what has been contemplated sanctioned in the estimate and agreement. 3. Sri S.V.Sastry, Chief Engineer, C.E.R.P., Dowleswaram in his Lr.No.F.189/92, dt.31.12.92 addressed to Government furnished that the soils in this reach have been classified as marine clays based on test results furnished by the Engineering College, Bapatla and it is not covered by the S.S.R. 4. Sri S.Muralikrishna, Superintending Engineer, C.E.R.P Circle Guntur in his Lr.No.832 CE dt.16.11.93 has stated that the classification of the soils are considered as recommended by the then Superintending Engineer under item No.2. 5. Sri P.Sambasiva Rao, Superintending Engineer, C.E.R.F Circle, Guntur in his Lr.No.767 CE dt.2.7.94 has considered that the classification of soils as marine clays as recommended by his predecessors as covered in the item Nos.2 and 4. 6. Dr.F.Sitapati Rao, Chief Engineer, C.E.R.F., Dowlaiswaram in his Lr.No.189/92 dt.10.9.94 addressed to the Government stated that the type of solis met with are already covered as clayee soils as per the accepted procedures that are followed since ages in the agreement.” 26. 6. Dr.F.Sitapati Rao, Chief Engineer, C.E.R.F., Dowlaiswaram in his Lr.No.189/92 dt.10.9.94 addressed to the Government stated that the type of solis met with are already covered as clayee soils as per the accepted procedures that are followed since ages in the agreement.” 26. As against Ex.B.34 – report of the first Committee dated 18.12.1995, recommending payment of Rs.9,22,660/-, plaintiff raised protest which resulted in constitution of the second Expert Committee vide Ex.A.4 – G.O.Rt.No.1081 dated 28.08.1997. Before the said second Committee, the plaintiff submitted Ex.A.5 – representation dated 03.09.1997. Vide Ex.A.7 – representation dated 05.12.1997, the plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 to allow tender percentage on the observed data. 27. The second Committee vide Ex.B.33 – Lr.No.CE/Dr/24/CERP, dated 15.11.1997 addressed to the Government (Expert Committee – II Report) recommended Rs.10,35,514/-. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the second Committee recommended compensation of 20% excess as against 42.78% excess of tender premium, but while calculating the amount second Committee failed to take the said aspect into consideration. 28. According to Ex.B.33 report dated 18.08.1997, the entire quantity above and below MSL is to be considered as equally difficult nature of soils and Committee also opined that the contractor can be compensated to an extent of 20%. In this context, it would be significant to note that vide Ex.B.35 – letter dated 29.09.1997, Superintending Engineer, Guntur, recommended for Rs.28,26,777/- but the Government – defendant No.1 vide Ex.A.8 – Memo dated 07.06.1999 rejected the claim without assigning any reasons whatsoever. The respondents – defendants also while rejecting the claim did not take into consideration Ex.B.18 letter dated 31.12.1992 of the Chief Engineer, Dowleswaram. In this Context, it may be appropriate and relevant to reproduce the following paragraphs of Ex.B.35 – letter of the Superintending Engineer dated 29.09.1997: “In this connection I am to inform that as per rules in vogue whenever the supplemented items are found they are to be paid at the rates at which the original tenders are compared. As such the observed data rates which are recommended by the Chief Engineer C.E.R.P. are to be paid imposing the tender premium +42.78% and 13% LA and LI on labour component, as the present scope of work done is dis-similar to that of work done during the year 1974-74 in all respects. Thus the rate in 1991-92 is not deducible from that of 1973-74 work. Thus the rate in 1991-92 is not deducible from that of 1973-74 work. As per agreement, the department is represented by the Executive Engineer in settlement of rates as per actual for items for which there are no agreed rates and there is no mention of the roll of Quality Control and Inspection Staff. The following rates are worked out based on the observed data recommended by the Chief Engineer duly imposing the tender premium +42.78% and 13% to words LA and LI on Labour component details are furnished in statement enclosed. 1. Earth work excavation in marine clay soils with all leads and lifts – Rs.634.48/10 cum. 2. Earth work excavation in marine clay soils with ¼ km. extra lead. – Rs.688.91/10 cum. As against the above items the contractor claimed Rs.636.45/10 cum and 739.10/10 cum. respectively and these are higher than the observed data. Hence the lesser of the observed data as recommended by the Chief Engineer to Government may be considered. Further as regards determination of quantity of marine clay the contractor’s are claiming the full quantity under the classification of marine clay soils as against the decision taken by the expert committee considered as per the report of APERL relating to other reach i.e., upper reach package No.188. In this connection it is to be stated that as per the instructions of the Chief Engineer, CERF vide letter No.189/92, dated 4.8.1994 bay wise soil samples were collected by the construction staff in the presence of Q.C.& I staff and got tested at the laboratories of Bapatla Engineering College, Bapatla which are only relevant results for classification. In as much as the soil test results are available to this reach, it is not considered necessary to adopt APERL report. It is also further to be informed that Executive Engineer, drainage division, Chirala and Superintending Engineer, C.E.R.F. Circle, Chirala have recommended entire quantity to be classified as marine clays. Hence the entire quantity may be considered as marine clay soils. Ignoring the test results of this reach and adoption of adjacent reach results for this reach is injustice. In view of the above the total financial commitment works out to be Rs.28,26,777/- (The details are enclosed). This is submitted for favour of taking further action.” 29. Hence the entire quantity may be considered as marine clay soils. Ignoring the test results of this reach and adoption of adjacent reach results for this reach is injustice. In view of the above the total financial commitment works out to be Rs.28,26,777/- (The details are enclosed). This is submitted for favour of taking further action.” 29. It is also pertinent to note in this context that, while dealing with the work, pertaining to construction of additional vents to Garespudi U.T. at Km. 0.00 of Pedalanka drain, tender percentage of 124.31% was taken into consideration while arriving at the rate for the item not covered under the S.S.R rates. 30. The contention of the learned Government Pleader, touching the aspect of limitation that as the subject contract came to be executed on 30.06.1992 but the suit came to be instituted on 25.04.2002 i.e., nearly after ten (10) years, as such the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation is liable to be rejected, in view of the reason that the claim of the plaintiff got crystallized only after Ex.A.8 – memo dated 07.06.1999, rejecting the claim. The fact remains that the suit came to be instituted on 25.04.2002 i.e., within three years from the date of rejection. Yet, another contention sought to be pressed into service by the learned Government Pleader is that according to Clause 34 of the General Conditions of Contract, plaintiff is not entitled for any price adjustment – price escalation. In this connection, it is to be noted that the material / item, which the plaintiff encountered during the execution of work, was neither mentioned in the agreement nor anticipated, nor this pleading was taken by the defendants in their written statement, as such, the said contention is not tenable and the same cannot be basis for non-suiting the plaintiff and the contention contra advanced by the learned Government Pleader is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 31. It is also significant to note that the State Government vide Ex.A-8 – Memo, without considering the material available and without recording any reasons rejected the claim of the plaintiff and the same cannot be approved. 31. It is also significant to note that the State Government vide Ex.A-8 – Memo, without considering the material available and without recording any reasons rejected the claim of the plaintiff and the same cannot be approved. The reasons assigned by the learned Additional District Judge for discarding the report of the Superintending Engineer vide Ex.B.55 – letter, in the considered opinion of this Court and having regard to the reasons mentioned therein cannot be approved by this Court. Admittedly, the transaction is a commercial transaction and the plaintiff is entitled for reasonable interest. 32. For the aforesaid reasons, A.S.No.477 of 2008 is partly allowed, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs.28,26,777/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and also entitled for future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said sum. Decree of the Trial Court is accordingly modified. Consequently, A.S.No.230 of 2009 stands dismissed. There shall no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed.