of profit. According to him, the plaintiff is entitled only to compensation for the expenses incurred by him in connection with the work. In other words, according to the learned Government Pleader, the impugned decree directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.38,863/towards loss of profit is unsustainable. There is no substance in the said argument. The plaintiff has no case in the plaint that the walls of the building were not strong enough to hold a concrete roof. Instead, the case set up by him was that when he was about to commence the work of the roof, the officials of the Department instructed him to stop the work. The materials referred to earlier would also indicate that it is at the instance of the officials of the Department that the work was stopped. DW1 has admitted in cross examination that he has instructed the plaintiff to stop the work of the concrete roof work on behalf of the Department. As noticed above, the plaintiff has though sent letters requesting the Department to permit him to resume the work, no reply was sent to those letters. As such, it
