- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1248 OF 2006 BETWEEN: K. D. KAMAT AND COMPANY, A FIRM OF ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT: HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI KRISHNARAO DADASAHEB KAMAT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR. 1. SRI PRASAD S/O. KRISHNARAO KAMAT, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NO.282, NEW SHAHAPURI, KOLHAPUR-416001 (MAHARASHTRA). …APPELLANTS (BY SRI V. NARAYANSWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM-590002. 2. THE KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, BANGALORE, BY ITS SECRETARY, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; M/S. KESVY & CO. ADVOCATES FOR R2.) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.124/1989, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN SO FAR AS IT HAS DISMISSED THE PLAINTIFF’S/APPELLANT’S CLAIM AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.1983 PASSED IN O.S.NO.143/1974, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PRAYED FOR AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS AND INTEREST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Learned counsel Sri Sharad V. Magadum, has filed memo for retirement from the case. Memo is accepted. Learned counsel Sri Sharad V. Magadum is permitted to retire from the case. 2. The matter is not admitted and is still lying for admission from the year 2006. Therefore, the appeal is taken up to consider as to whether the appeal is having merit involving substantial questions of law. 3. The plaintiff has filed this Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2006, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 passed in R.A.No.124/1989, by the I Additional District Judge, Belagavi (First Appellate Court), by which the appeal is partly allowed, decreeing the suit in part. The First Appellate Court has rejected the claim of plaintiff for oil and fuel charges, for rebate in hire charges and assessment of pitch work in cubic feet instead of square feet and further declared that the plaintiff is entitled to 15% increase in the cost of labour and material for the period from 31.12.1960 to 31.03.1963 over and above the agreed rate and directed the defendant to prepare final bills accordingly. 4. The suit filed by the plaintiff for finalizing the bills and for payment of amount is dismissed in its entirety. Being aggrieved by it, the plaintiff has preferred appeal and the First Appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and partly allowed the appeal as discussed above. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 5. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 6. It is the case of plaintiff as per the plaint averments that the plaintiff is a contractor and engineer and defendant Government has allotted to the plaintiff the work of construction of earthen dam and allied work at Rakaskop for Belagavi Water Supply Project. The plaintiff is a successful bidder. It is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled for oil and fuel charges, for rebated hire charges and assessment of pitch work in cubic feet instead of square feet. Therefore, claimed that the defendant still owes balance of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, filed a suit for finalization of bill and recovery of amount. 7. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit of plaintiff assigning reasons that the plaintiff fails to prove that plaintiff is entitled for rebate in hire charges and assessment of pitch work in cubic feet instead of square - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 feet. Further assigned reasons that the claim of plaintiff is barred by limitation. Accordingly dismissed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the Regular Appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has concurred with the finding of Trial Court rejecting claim of plaintiff for rebate in hire charges of machinery. Therefore, there is concurrent finding on this fact. Upon considering the evidence on record on this point, whether appreciation of evidence in this regard is correctly made or not and pleadings of the plaintiff that the Government has not supplied machineries which were 100% efficiency and therefore, expected work could not be turned out from those machineries, therefore, the plaintiff has put blame on the Government by saying the Government has not supplied good conditioned machineries. But contrary to this, the defendant submitted that the machineries supplied to the plaintiff were in order and in condition and both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court upon appreciation of evidence on record held that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 plaintiff has failed to prove that the machineries supplied were not in good condition. Therefore, the claim of plaintiff for rebated charges of machinery is rejected is found to be just and proper as there was no perversity found in the order. 9. But so far as whether the plaintiff is entitled for 15% increase in the cost of labour and material for the period of 31.12.1960 to 31.03.1963 over and above agreed rate is entitled, the trial Court has rejected this claim. But the First Appellate Court has allowed this claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is a divergent finding in this regard which is formulated as point No.3 by the First Appellate Court. 10. It is not in dispute that tender was called on 09.12.1957 and accepted on 12.09.1958 and the work order was issued on 30.10.1958. The time fixed for completion of work is 18 months from the date of work order excluding the mansoon period commencing from - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 June 15 ending on 15th October of each year. Thus, the period fixed for completion of work was 31.12.1960. But the plaintiff has competed the work on 31.03.1963 and the project was handed over to the Government on that day. But it is the claim of plaintiff that on account of the delay caused by the defendant Government in handing over the site of project on account of due to delay in acquisition proceedings, change in design of the project and some works and inefficiency in the machineries of the Government, the plaintiff could not complete the work before 31.12.1960. Therefore, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is liable to make good the increase of labour and material by 30% during the period from 31.12.1960 to 31.03.1963. 11. Upon considering the evidence in this regard of PW.2 and Ex.P.23, in Ex.P23, it is mentioned that possession of the land belonging to private persons was taken over through private negotiations. PW.2, in the report at Ex.P16, has explained the causes for the delay. Upon re- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 appreciating of the evidence recorded by the First Appellate Court and the documentary evidence at Ex.P16, Ex.P22 and Ex.P23, it has been observed that the land had not been acquired prior to the issuance of work order. 12. In Ex.P22, the Executive Engineer has stated that delay in execution of work was partly due to the contractors, being instructed to excavate only a width of 50 feet for the approach and tail channel, as against the approved full width of 150 feet, and also due to the fact that the design of the waste weir had not been finalized. Therefore, the words “delay due to slow progress by the contractors themselves” are interpolated. The delay caused was partly due to change in the width of excavation of the approach and tail channel and non-finalization of the design of waste weir. 13. Further, at Ex.P22, the Executive Engineer admits that there are some delays in finalization of the design of waste weir. Further, admitted that the schedule - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:784 RSA No. 1248 of 2006 rates of concerned area were increased by 15% in 1960-61. Therefore, the First Appellate Court allowed the claim of plaintiff and declared that he is entitled to 15% increase in the cost of labour and material for the period 31.12.1960 and 31.03.1963 over and above the agreed rate, which is found to be just and proper. Hence, the appeal is not found to be having involved substantial questions of law, so as to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 15. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. 16. No order as to cost. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK-para 1 to 10. PMP-para 11 to end. CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21