has extensively taken me through the exchange of communication between the parties as also the oral evidence in the context of the terms of the contract, in order to submit that there was no lapse on the part of the plaintiff in executing the contract. He submitted that on the contrary, there were serious lapses on the part of the defendants in not adhering to the terms of the contract, as a result of which, the appellant was unable to work and to execute the contract within time. For instance, the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that admittedly, there were certain sites which were not cleared and there were hindrances in the execution of the work. It is also submitted that the bill of material contained certain items, which were not readily available in the market and which were obsolete. It is submitted that there was also delay in the approval of the drawings. It is submitted that the work also could not be carried out due to the intervening monsoon period. He submits that the Trial Court has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence in the context of the terms of the contract and as a result of which, the material part of the suit claim, has been dismissed. Shri Rodrigues, the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the contract was awarded to some other person after the termination of the contract with the plaintiff. The learned Counsel was at pains to point out that the subsequent contractor was also not able to complete the work for
