Full Judgment
P.N. SHINGHAL, J.
1. After the hearing in this case had proceeded for some time, it was felt that there was force in the first point which was argued by the learned Attorney-General, namely, that if in any bill of the contractor it was expressly stated that the bill was in final settlement of his demand for the work concerned, that would be an admission against its maker who would therefore be bound by it unless he could explain it away satisfactorily. While we found merit in that contention of the learned Attorney-General, we did not find it possible to examine the evidentiary value of the submission as it appeared that the point had not been raised in the High Court.
2. The arguments in the case therefore proceeded on other points, when it was suggested by the court that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be desirable if the increased excise duty was shared equitably by the parties. That suggestion was accepted by learned counsel for both the parties, and they agreed that the impugned decree of the High Court may be reduced by a sum of Rs 18,000 with a corresponding reduction in the amount of interest as well. As no other point remains for consideration in view of the compromising attitude adopted by both the learned counsel, we allow the appeal to the extent mentioned above but make no order as to costs in this Court. The High Court decree shall stand modified only to that extent.