experience as a contractor, and it is therefore difficult to accept that such a person would continue to work and receive payments of lakhs of rupees without objecting to an alleged enlargement of the scope of work. 14. The work was commenced on 15.06.20023, before the issuance of the work order, pursuant to a meeting between the parties that took place on 08.06.2003, wherein the decision to award the works to the appellant was taken. The minutes of the meeting dated 08.06.2023 record the initial understanding between the parties, whereby the balance work for the 10.5 MLD Water Treatment Plant was awarded to the appellant, and a list of specific items was enumerated. In fact, the said understanding also explicitly records that the appellant has agreed to all the balance work even other than the items listed therein. The minutes do not lay down the complete terms and conditions on which the works were to be executed by the appellant. A work order was eventually issued on 22.09.2003, and the same came along with General as well as Special Terms and Conditions. This work order contained the complete terms and conditions of contract. The appellant is too experienced a contractor to assume that the minutes of the meeting represented the complete and binding contract between the parties, even though it was shorn of any details. Also, there was no subsequent protest or refusal to accept the work order when the same was issued. There is no evidence that the appellant disputed the applicability of the work order dated 22.09.2003 or asserted the supremacy of the minutes of the meeting dated 08.06.2003. The conduct of the appellant clearly establishes that the appellant understood that the minutes constituted merely a preliminary agreement to enter into an agreement which would eventually bear out all the terms and conditions of the contract. Even otherwise, as per the rule of
