Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. According to the plaintiff, after almost 20 months from the scheduled date of start, arevised layout plan reducing the number of flats from 160 to 136 i.e. 72 forGroup I& 64 for GroupII was handed over to him on17.12.2003 and it was informed to plaintiff that the revised structuraldrawings will be shortly issued.

15. Resultantly, the work could not still be started because of the non- availability of thestructural/foundation drawings. As per the revised layout plan also, someblocks were shifted to new locations for which soil investigation wasbeing done by the Department. Because of the aforesaid change in layoutand the ongoing soil investigation at the new site, plaintiff had to make large scalechanges in its plans and also shift the steel yards, water tanks, labour huts, site office etc. thereby causing further loss to plaintiff. In addition to this, the movement of labour and deployment of plant and machinery by other agencies forcarrying out soil investigation further disrupted the progress of work andalso led to increased losses for plaintiff.

21. The plaintiff claimed that after he had remobilized entire men, material andmachinery on false assurances of compensation from the defendants for their various breached, theDepartment started coercing plaintiff to withdraw hisClaims vide letter dated 2.07.2004.DDA sought the plaintiff to give anUndertaking that he will not claim any 10CC/ escalation beyond thestipulated date of completion due to revised layout plan/ on account of soilcondition at site.

57. It is explained that Revised Layout Plan for construction of 136 houses against proposed construction of 160 houses was received on 17.12.2003 and the same was handed over to the plaintiff on 17.12.2003.The Revised Layout Plan was made after making adjustment within the existing site itself. As there were some ditches filled with malba in the alignment of some of the blocks, at plaintiff's instance, vide letter dated 13.12.2002, he was informed that a proposal for alternative site was under consideration which was duly recorded in the Hindrance Register. The Revised Layout Plan was issued on 17.12.2003 and structural drawings good for construction, were issued on 05.04.2004 and 18.05.2004.

133. The revised layout plans were provided to the plaintiff in December, 2003 when he commenced the work, but in April, 2004 he was served with a Notice directing him to stop the work on account of the Vigilance Inquiry that had been initiated by the DDA. In all the plaintiff has been able to work barely for about ten months and most of the time he was rendered unable to continue with the work because of the supervening circumstances and the revision of plans etc. Rather, his evidence coupled with the Hindrance Register reflects that he was working on the site vigilantly as per the work schedule. Therefore, it is established that the delay in execution of work as awarded to the plaintiff was not on account of his conduct.The plaintiff, therefore, committed no breach of the terms of the Agreement which could justify rescission of Contract.