JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellants/defendants against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.03.2006 in O.S. No. 19 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, at Warangal, wherein the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants for recovery of money was decreed in part. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. I. BRIEF FACTS 3. The sole plaintiff filed the above suit vide O.S. No. 19 of 2001 against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 35,19,575/-. The case of the plaintiff is that he being a special class contractor entered into an agreement on 21.10.1998 with the defendant No.2 for construction of two high-level bridges at KM 71/8-10 and KM 88/0-2 on the Sangareddy–Nanded–Akola Road in Medak District for Rs.1,14,86,710/- with 2.31% excess tender, to be completed within 18 months by 21.04.2000. The plaintiff mobilized men, machinery, capital and completed the first bridge by April 1999, but due to changes in designs, abnormally increased quantities, and defendants’ failure to finalize the site for the second bridge until May, 2000 (after the original contract period), the entire scope of work was altered, including dismantling of the old bridge and diversion works which were not part of the agreement. Though time was extended by letters dated 14.11.2000 and 28.03.2001 up to 30.04.2001 within which he completed the work, the plaintiff had incurred huge extra expenditure due to prolongation and changed market conditions. The plaintiff submitted his claims in August, 2000 but the same were not settled by the defendants. 4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendants filed written statement and contended that the work for the two bridges was awarded on tender basis at a bid value of Rs. 1,14,86,710/- with 2.3% excess, under agreement dated 21.10.1998, to be completed by 20.04.2000, and that the alignment of the second bridge at KM 88/0-2 was finalized as early as 17.11.1998 during joint inspection, duly marked on the ground, and notified to the plaintiff by letter dated 04.01.1999. Despite mobilization advance of Rs.5, 74,000/- and repeated notices, the plaintiff failed to start work in time and intentionally delayed execution to avoid forming a diversion road, which under Clause 8 of the special conditions was his own obligation. Despite mobilization advance of Rs.5, 74,000/- and repeated notices, the plaintiff failed to start work in time and intentionally delayed execution to avoid forming a diversion road, which under Clause 8 of the special conditions was his own obligation. The defendants assert that dismantling of the old bridge was included by supplemental estimates approved by the Chief Engineer in January 2000, for which payment was made and accepted by the plaintiff, and the revised drawings were communicated in January, 2000 not in May 2000 as alleged. The delay was solely due to the plaintiff’s slackness and mala fide conduct. Floods in June, 2000 washed away only the temporary diversion, not materials or machinery, which had already been shifted by the plaintiff, and as per Clauses 12-10, the risks were entirely the contractors. According to the defendants, all payments were released as per agreement and award of the Technical Expert, and the plaintiff’s claims for revised rates, diversion road costs, or escalation are untenable since the delays were attributable to the plaintiff alone. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. II. ISSUES 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the amount of Rs.31,65,188/- as claimed in the plaint? (2) Whether the construction of high Level bridges at KM. 71/8-10 and 88/10-2 of Sangareddy – Nanded – Akola Road not completed within the period of agreement? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the rates claimed for dismantle of bridges without approval of Chief Engineer? (4) Whether the plaintiff received the amount for dismantle charges vide 5 th bill on 26.08.2000? (5) Whether the plaintiff received modified drawing maps with red print in May, 2000 as pleaded in written statement? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled Rs.6.79 lakhs towards loss of material and machinery due to heavy rains from 29.06.2000 and 30.06.2000? (7) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled for damages or loss, risks of physical property and personal injury as per the agreement Clause 12 -10? (8) Whether the plaintiff is not claimed any compensation charges in his L.O.T. application? (9) Whether the award No.APHM ECRP/Peb/46/2k 06 dated 21.03.2001 passed by the Technical Expert is not proper? (10) Whether the suit is not filed within the time from the date of award passed by the Technical Expert as per clause 25-2 of Agreement? (8) Whether the plaintiff is not claimed any compensation charges in his L.O.T. application? (9) Whether the award No.APHM ECRP/Peb/46/2k 06 dated 21.03.2001 passed by the Technical Expert is not proper? (10) Whether the suit is not filed within the time from the date of award passed by the Technical Expert as per clause 25-2 of Agreement? (11) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the amounts claimed 1 to 9 in the plaint? (12) Whether this court is not having jurisdiction as per Clause 25-3 special condition of contract? (13) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the interest as claimed in the plaint? 6. On 05.03.2004, the following additional issue was framed: Whether the plaintiff is entitled enhanced amount for Claim Nos.1 and 8 as per amendment? 7. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 wee examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A62 on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Bl to B29 were marked on behalf of the defendants. III. FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT 8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 21.03.2006, decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs for Rs.17,47,203-00 with interest at the rate of 12% P.A. from the date of suit till the date of Decree i.e., 21.3.2006 thereafter at Rs. 6% P.A. till the date of realisation. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. 10. Heard both sides and perused the record. IV. POINT FOR DETERMINATION 11. Now the point for determination is: Whether there are any grounds to set aside the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2006 in O.S. No. 19 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Court, at Warangal? V. ANALYSIS 12. There is no dispute with regard to contractual relationship between the parties in respect of construction of High-level bridges at KM 71/8-10 and 88/0-2 of Sangareddy - Nanded - Akola Road in Medak District. The contract was awarded to the plaintiff on tender basis at a bid price of Rs. 1,14,86,710/- with a tender percentage of 2.3% excess over estimate by the Defendant No.2 i.e., Superintending Engineer (R&B)/R&B/APHM & ECRP Circle, Warangal. The contract was awarded to the plaintiff on tender basis at a bid price of Rs. 1,14,86,710/- with a tender percentage of 2.3% excess over estimate by the Defendant No.2 i.e., Superintending Engineer (R&B)/R&B/APHM & ECRP Circle, Warangal. Admittedly the stipulated period of contract was 18 months from the date of conclusion of the Agreement i.e., from 21.10.1998 and thus, the work is to be completed by 20.4.2000. Though the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.35,19,575/-, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit awarding an amount of Rs. 17,47,203/-. However, the plaintiff did not prefer any appeal for recovery of balance amount. 13. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that with regard to laying of diversion road the plaintiff- contractor has to provide and maintain diversion road at his own cost until the work is completed with the specifications as per Clause 8 of Special Conditions of the Contract. It is further argued that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the specifications under Clause 8 are (1) earthen formation (2) gravel sub-base (3) WBM Grade-II layers (4) WBM Grade-Ill layers (5) Temporary C.D. works, however, the plaintiff-contractor delayed the work with the modified intention to avoid forming diversion road at his own cost as contemplated in the Agreement. 14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as per the original agreement, laying of diversion road is not contemplated and dismantling of old bridge is also not there in Ex.A1 and Ex.B10 as well as in the sanctioned estimation under Ex.B12. As per the version of the plaintiff, the intention of the defendants is to keep the old bridge intact and widen it and allow the traffic on the old bridge and the question of laying of diversion road arise only if the old bridge is to be dismantled but no where it is mentioned that diversion road has to be formed and existing bridge has to be dismantled. However, the Trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that as per clause 8 of special conditions of contract, the contractor has to provide and maintain diversion roads at his own cost until the work is completed and also dismantle the diversion road at his own costs on completion of work. However, the Trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that as per clause 8 of special conditions of contract, the contractor has to provide and maintain diversion roads at his own cost until the work is completed and also dismantle the diversion road at his own costs on completion of work. In view of the above facts and circumstances and by taking into consideration Clause 8 of the special conditions of the contract, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff towards expenses for laying diversion road. 15. Further, as per Ex.B24 letter dated 10.08.2000 addressed by the superintending Engineer, R & B Circle (D4) to the Chief Engineer, the contractor completed the first bridge in time and due to modified designs of the bridge at KM88/0-2 as suggested by World Bank Consultant, the bridge work could not be taken up in time. The letter further reads that revised GAD was communicated to the contractor during January, 2000 and accordingly dismantling of existing bridge was taken up duly forming diversion road. Ex.B24 further reveals that again modification to design of piers 5 to 7 were approved and communicated in May, 2000 as the rock was met at highest level. In view of the above discussion, it is very much clear that the first bridge work was completed in time and second bridge work could not be commenced due to modifications in the designs and also due to floods. Even as per the document/letter of the Department/defendants, there are no attributions against the plaintiff for the delay in completing the work. The second bridge dismantling work, which was not part of the original agreement, was communicated to the plaintiff after completion of first bridge work. Admittedly the plaintiff has laid diversion road, which was washed away due to floods. The modification designs in respect of remaining work were handed over to the plaintiff only after receipt of several communications from the plaintiff. Hence, there is no prima facie material to show that the delay in completing the work was due to the laches on behalf of the plaintiff. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that no machinery or material is washed away due to heavy rains as alleged by the plaintiff. Hence, there is no prima facie material to show that the delay in completing the work was due to the laches on behalf of the plaintiff. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that no machinery or material is washed away due to heavy rains as alleged by the plaintiff. At this stage, it is appropriate to have a glance on the admission made by DW1, who deposed that there were heavy rains causing floods on 29.06.2000 and 30.06.2000 and during the floods, the diversion road formed by the plaintiff was washed away. The Trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that Ex.B24 establishes the fact that work of second bridge was in progress as on the date of floods, so, it is reasonable to believe that material and machinery was at the work site at the time of floods.It is to be noted that when the work is under progress, the plaintiff cannot shift the material and machinery that are available at the work place. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that as per Clauses 12-10 of the Agreement, all risks or loss, damage to physical property and personal injury which arise during and in consequence of performance of contract other than the expected risks, are the responsibility of the contractor. A perusal of Clause 13 of the agreement makes it clear that the contractor shall provide insurance cover and if the contractor does not provide insurance cover, the Department has to provide insurance cover and recover the same from the contractor. The Trial Court made an observation that an obligation is cast upon both the contractor and the Department to provide the insurance coverage. It is to be seen that plaintiff addressed a letter dated 15.05.2000 under Ex.A20 requesting the Department for extension of time up to 31.12.2000 giving reasons for not completing the work within the agreement period. The plaintiff also addressed another letter under Ex.A22 dated 28.08.2000 informing the defendants about the loss of material and equipment worth Rs.6,79,500/- sustained by him in the floods in August, 2000 in the extra period of contract and in reply to the said letter, the Department issued letter under Ex.A53 dated 31.08.2000 asking the plaintiff to provide insurance cover for the extended period from 21.04.2000 to 31.12.2000. Since the floods damaged the material and equipment in the month of August, 2000, obtaining insurance after the loss of material and equipment due to floods does not serve the purpose. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he obtained insurance from 09.03.1999 to 20.04.2000 as per the original agreement. It is also specifically submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff did not obtain the insurance for the extended period as extension was not granted by the Department. Thus, the Trial Court rightly fixed the onus of sharing the loss sustained by the plaintiff equally on both the parties i.e., 50% against the plaintiff and 50% against defendants. Therefore, the Trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- towards the damages caused to the material and equipment of the plaintiff due to the floods. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff had approached the Technical Expert as per Clause 25.1 and submitted his claims before him on 22.02.2000 and the Technical Expert conducted the adjudication proceedings on 22.02.2001 and after receiving the representation of the contractor and also the rebuttal of the Department and after examining the same in detail by the Technical Expert, the decision of Technical Expert was communicated vide his Award dated 21.3.2001 and out of the 12 claims presented by the plaintiff before the Technical Expert, 8 claims were totally negatived by the Technical Expert in his Award. The Trial Court rightly observed that the plaintiff has not accepted the decision of the expert and filed the suit and therefore, the decision of the expert assumes no importance as contended by the plaintiff since the issue was raised in the court of law. Moreover, as per Clause 25.3 of the Special conditions of the contract incorporated in the agreement, all the claims above Rs.50,000/- are to be settled by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of civil suit. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that as per Clause 25.2 of the Agreement, the dispute on the claim is to be referred to the Civil Court within 28 days from the date of decision by the Technical Expert. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that as per Clause 25.2 of the Agreement, the dispute on the claim is to be referred to the Civil Court within 28 days from the date of decision by the Technical Expert. The contractor filed the present Suit during September, 2001 though the decision of the Technical Expert is dated 21.3.2001 and as such the Suit was not maintainable. The Trial court at Page No.31 of the impugned judgment observed that the Technical Expert gave his opinion on 04.03.2001 under Ex.A3 and it was received by the plaintiff on 27.03.2001 and the suit was filed on 24.04.2001. Thus, it is evident that the plaintiff had filed the suit within the limitation, more particularly, in consonance with Clause 25.2 of the agreement. Hence, the above contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is untenable. 20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the Final Bill was paid to the plaintiff as per the conditions of the Agreement under Clause 47 of the Agreement. It is further contended that the Trial Court erred in granting Rs. 3,61,611/- under Claim No.1 ignoring Clause 38.1 of the conditions of the Contract. The plaintiff having agreed and signed the Supplemental Agreement for the rates specified therein for the excess quantities (Item No.7-A, 9-A, 10-A and 12-A) and having received without any objection, the plaintiff is not entitled to the amount under this head. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen under Clause 38.1 of the Conditions of Contract, the Engineer shall adjust the rate of quantities exceedingly more than 25% provided in the bill of quantities and the department is not bound to pay the extra rates. However, payment was made for the excess quantities at the agreement rates on the work of the first bridge at KM 71/8-10 as per the Agreement and also as per the decision of the Technical Expert. 21. The plaintiff is claiming compensation of Rs.1,89,159/- towards quantity in excess of 25% of the agreement quantity and 15% towards the overheads and profit as per Ex.A63. 21. The plaintiff is claiming compensation of Rs.1,89,159/- towards quantity in excess of 25% of the agreement quantity and 15% towards the overheads and profit as per Ex.A63. The plaintiff is also claiming an amount of Rs.1,72,452/- towards the deduction made by the defendant @ Rs.456/- for a quantity of 304.89 cu.m. Admittedly at Page 5 of Ex.B22 Measurement Book, the rate was calculated at Rs.3,000/- but while making payment as per page 42 at the time of final bill the rate was calculated at Rs.2,448/- by reducing Rs.456/- for a quantity of 304.89 cu.m. The trial Court observed at Page No.33 of the impugned judgment that the supplemental agreement was executed and final bill was settled after filing the suit. Therefore, the defendants cannot say that the plaintiff received the bill without any protest. It was further observed that the plaintiff categorically stated that he received the bill under protest. There is also no evidence to show that the plaintiff received the amounts without any protest. If at all the plaintiff had not objected for receiving the amount without any protest, the plaintiff would not have filed the suit, more particularly, he would not have contested the suit. The defendants are not denying about the quantities exceeding 25% of the agreement quantity. The defendants have not even denied about the deduction made by them at Rs.456/- for a quantity of 304.89 cu.m and moreover there is no explanation as to why they have deducted Rs.456/- for a quantity of 304.89 cu.m causing loss to the plaintiff. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly awarded Rs.3,61,611/-i.e., difference of Rs.1,72,452/- and Rs.1,89,159/- towards excess quantities executed in the bridge work than the quantities mentioned in the agreement. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court grossly erred in granting Rs.7,05,592/- under Claim Nos.2 and 9 put together on the ground of escalation of rates for the work done beyond Agreement period. It is further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff has shifted all his men and machinery and they were never kept idle at the site. It is the contractor himself responsible for the delays occurred and the question of payment of increased prices as per Clause 44.2 and compensation events under Clause 44 (1)(c) of the Contract does not arise. It is the contractor himself responsible for the delays occurred and the question of payment of increased prices as per Clause 44.2 and compensation events under Clause 44 (1)(c) of the Contract does not arise. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff had badly delayed the work and that the department based on the request of the plaintiff, granted extension of time from time to time beyond the agreed period of completion i.e., 20.4.2000 without any escalation charges and in fact the plaintiff-contractor never claimed any extra compensation charges in his E.O.T. applications and as such he is not entitled for any escalated rates beyond agreement period. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the modified drawings were in fact supplied in January, 2000 itself and the contention of the plaintiff that they were supplied in May, 2000, is absolutely incorrect and the contractor, in fact, accepted the revised drawings and received in January, 2000 vide letter dated 30.1.2000. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff was notified vide Executive Engineer (R&B), APHM & ECRP Division, Sangareddy letter dated 4.1.1999 with a request to start the work on bridge in KM 88/0-2 of Sangareddy - Nanded - Akola road duly dismantling the existing road and thereafter the contractor was frequently notified and requested to start the work of second bridge at KM 88/0-2 as the plaintiff was paid an amount of Rs.5.74 lakhs towards the mobilization advance for the two bridges as the Agreement contemplated two bridges simultaneously as shown in the milestones fixed in the Agreement. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that in view of the delay caused by the plaintiff for more than one year, the revised GAD with solid type superstructure was communicated by the Chief Engineer on 20.11.1999 which was sent to him in Executive Engineer's letter dated 12.1.2000 with a request to complete the work within the Agreement period. 23. 23. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was supposed to complete the work by 20.04.2000 but the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendants gave the drawing and modified designs only in January, 2000 i.e., just three months before the completion of period as mentioned in the agreement and directed the plaintiff to complete the work within the agreement period. It was further argued that the plaintiff was forced to execute the work beyond agreement period and incurred extra cost for executing the work beyond the agreement period on account of the delays and faults committed by the defendants. It was further contended that the defendants extended time twice by 14.11.2000 and 30.04.2001 and in pursuance of the same, the plaintiff completed the work within the stipulated time extended by the defendants. The trial Court observed in the impugned judgment that work on the second bridge could not be started due to delays committed by the Department and that modified design was given to the plaintiff only in January, 2000 i.e., three months before completion of agreement period and 15 months after the date of agreement. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff addressed letter dated 10.03.1999 under Ex.A4 requesting the defendants to provide clear alignment at the second bridge at KM 88/02 and two more letters dated 18.06.1999 and 17.11.1999 under Exs.A7 and A11 respectively informing the defendants that he could not start the work as site for the bridge was not so far decided. Thus, it is amply clear that though the plaintiff was ready and willing to complete the work, he could not do the same due to the laches on the part of the defendants in not providing the modified designs and alignment of the bridge, where the work was to be executed. It is also clear that the plaintiff has been insisting the defendants at regular intervals by way of correspondence under Exs.A4, A7 and A11 to provide him alignment and modified designs but the defendants could provide general drawing in January, 2000 and modified drawing in May, 2000 to the plaintiff. DW1 admitted in his cross examination that as per the agreement, the length of the bride was 66 meters and subsequently, it was modified to 88 meters as per the designs. DW1 admitted in his cross examination that as per the agreement, the length of the bride was 66 meters and subsequently, it was modified to 88 meters as per the designs. DW2 admitted in his cross examination that there is no dismantling of the bride in the agreement and only on 20.01.2000 the dismantling of bridge was approved. Thus, the delay in completing the work has to be attributed against the defendants but not against the plaintiff. 24. It is pertinent to note that though the plaintiff has been claiming compensation of Rs.9,82,452/- for the extra cost incurred by him in executing the work beyond the agreement period as per the SSR Rates of 2000-01, he admitted that he had received Rs.2,76,862/- from the defendants towards the work done as per the agreement rates. Thus, the trial Court deducted Rs.2,76,862/- from Rs.9,82,452/- and rightly awarded Rs.7,05,592/- towards extra cost incurred by the plaintiff for the work done by him during the extended period. 25. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court grossly erred in granting a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-towards payment for loss sustained by the plaintiff due to washing away of materials and machinery during floods of August 2000 at the bridge site at KM 88/0-2 ignoring the Clauses 12-10 of Conditions of Contract of the Agreement, wherein it is clearly stated that all risks or loss or damage to the physical property and personal injury which arise during and in the course of performance of the contract other than the expected risks are the exclusive responsibility of the contractor himself. It is further argued that the contractor had to keep his plant, machinery and equipment at his risk and cannot claim any amount under this head and the Trial Court ought not to have granted Rs. 3,40,000/- which is in fact negatived by the Technical Expert also. It is further contended that the Trial Court grossly erred in granting an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- under the head of Additional Expenditure on over- heads beyond the stipulated period contrary to the conditions of the Agreement and also ignoring the grant of extension of time by the department specifically putting on notice the plaintiff that he is not entitled for escalation charges. The Trial Court should have further seen that the plaintiff never made such a request in his letter for grant of E.O.T. after 31.12.2000 and the Technical Expert has also negatived the same. 26. It is to be seen that the plaintiff had claimed for additional expenditure for remaining at the site with his establishment beyond the stipulated period of contract. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that he could not complete the work by 20.04.2000 due to the defaults committed by the Department and the work was carried on for a further period of 12 months and during such period, the plaintiff was compelled to maintain his extra establishment and incurred heavy expenditure by way of overheads and the defendants are liable to pay the same. The Trial Court observed at Page No.43 of the impugned judgment that revised GAD was communicated to the plaintiff in January, 2000 and further modifications were approved and communicated to the plaintiff in May, 2000 as the rock was met at higher level and modified general drawing was approved on 16.05.2000, which goes to show that the delay is caused only on account of modification of the designs and the plaintiff was compelled to carry out the work beyond the agreement period. Though the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.6,47,245/- in pursuance of Ex.A26 Standard Data Book @ Rs.63,850/- per month for the extended period of 12 months, the Trial Court opined that the amount as claimed by the plaintiff is appearing to be excessive and thus, awarded an amount of Rs.3,40,000/-, which is appearing to be reasonable. 27. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest as awarded by the Trial Court. However, as seen from the impugned judgment, though the plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount claimed, the trial Court awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum. Thus, it appears that the rate of interest awarded by the Trial Court is just and reasonable. 28. Thus, it appears that the rate of interest awarded by the Trial Court is just and reasonable. 28. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no iota of evidence to establish that the delay in completing the contract work is due to the laches on behalf of the plaintiff. The Trial Court after considering the oral and the documentary evidence on behalf of both the sides arrived to appropriate conclusion. Upon a careful consideration of the matter and on perusal of the memorandum of grounds of appeal, it is manifestly clear that the appellants have merely reiterated the very same grounds which were already been urged before the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court had already considered and answered all those grounds that were raised before it. VI. CONCLUSION 29. In the considered view of this Court, the appellants have failed to prove and establish any tenable grounds so as to demonstrate that the trial Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. We are, therefore of the firm opinion that no case is made out warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this appellate court. Consequently, the Appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. VII. RESULT 30. In the result, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in the Appeal, shall stand closed.