R.F.A. No. 14 of 2008. Case: Shankarlal Jhawar Vs State of Assam and Ors.. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | R.F.A. No. 14 of 2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: O.P. Bhatti, Adv. and For Respondents: P. Deka, Adv. |
| Judges | Ranjan Gogoi and C.R. Sarma, JJ. |
| Issue | Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 14; Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Section 80 and 80(1) - Order 30, Rules 1, 1(1) and 10; Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 468 and 471 |
| Citation | 2010 (4) GLT 378 |
| Judgement Date | August 20, 2010 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Judgment:
C.R. Sarma, J.
-
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14.11.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 2, Guwahati, in Money Suit No. 72/2004.
-
The Plaintiff's case in brief, may be stated as follows:
On the basis of a supply order, issued by the Defendant No. 3, the Plaintiff supplied ration item to the Defendant No. 3 and the total bill amount, towards the supply of ration, during the period from June, 2001 to May, 2002, came to Rs. 52,06,781/-. Against the said bill amount, the Plaintiff received payment, for the supply made, for the months of September, 2001 to March, 2002 and thus an amount of Rs. 20,73,522/-, being the bill amount for supply of goods in the months of June 2001, July 2001, August 2001, April 2002 and May 2002 remained unpaid. In spite of demanding the payment of the said balance amount, as the Defendant No. 3 failed to respond, the Plaintiff served a pleader's notice, dated 17.3.04, on the Defendants by registered post with A/D. The notices were duly received by Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 19.3.04, 20.3.04 and 28.3.04 respectively. By the said notice, the Plaintiff demanded immediate payment of Rs. 20,73,522/- together with interest @18% from the date of the bill till actual payment, and Rs. 5000/- towards the cost of notice and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony. As the Defendants failed to respond to the said notice, the Plaintiff instituted the suit for realisation of an amount of Rs. 25,39,028/- with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 18% with cost of the suit.
-
The Defendants contested the suit, by filing written statement. In their written statement, the Defendants contended, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable on facts and law and also for non-service of notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. Admitting the Plaintiff's claim, regarding existence of a contract and the supply of ration items by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No. 3 for the period from June, 2001 to May, 2002 as per the conditions laid down in the supply order, the Defendants averred that, against the supply of dry ration for the month of June, 2001 to Augus, 2001, an amount of Rs. 12,03,430/- was paid by the Defendant No. 3 to M/s Manoj Enterprises, Chatribari, Guwahati by Govt. Draft No. 007273, dated 4.12.01, which was received by one Shri S.R. Bagree, on behalf of M/s Manoj Enterprises on 4.12.01, and that again payments of Rs. 18,05,982/- and Rs. 13,20,388/-, towards supply of dry ration for the months of September, 2001 to March, 2002, were also made by the Defendant No. 3 in favour of the M/s Manoj Enterprises, vide Pay Cheque No. 37 dated 30.2.02 and Pay Cheque No. 59 dated 29.6.02 and that the said payment was received by one Prahlad Singh Tanwar, on behalf of M/s Manoj Enterprises. It is contended by the Defendants, in their written statement, that the payment in respect of the bills for the month of April, 2002 and May, 2002 were held up on the basis of the letter No. S/V III-101/1999-2000/Pt/143 dated Guwahati the 1st March, 2003, issued by Defendant No. 2 thereby directing the Defendant No. 3 not to release any payment to the Plaintiff for the period from April, 2002 to May, 2002, due to the latter's involvement in forgery. It is stated, in the written statement, that due to involvement of the Plaintiff in forgery and production of false documents regarding Sales Tax Registration Certificate, at the time of submitting the tender paper for obtaining the supply order, a FIR was lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam and that CID P.S. Case No. 18/04, under Section 420/468/471 IPC, was registered against the Plaintiff. According to Defendants, the payment for supply of dry ration for remaining two months i.e. April, 2002 and May, 2002, amounting to Rs. 8,60,977/- was held up by the Assam Police HQRs. for involvement of the Plaintiff in forgery and production of false documents regarding AGST registration certificate.
-
Upon pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the suit is bad for non-service under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure?
(ii) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get decree for Rs. 20,73,522/-?
(v) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum as prayed for?
(vi)To what other relief/or reliefs, the parties are entitled?
-
The Plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and he was cross-examined on behalf of the Defendants. The Defendants did not adduce any evidence. The learned trial Judge, by the impugned judgment and order under appeal, dismissed the Plaintiff's suit resulting in this appeal.
-
We have heard Mr. O.P. Bhatti, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Plaintiff and Mr. P. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents-Defendants.
-
Mr. Bhatti, learned Counsel for the Appellant, taking us through the pleadings of the parties, as well as the evidence on record, submitted that the learned trial Judge committed error by deciding that the suit was bad for want of proper notice, under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure, and that the suit was not maintainable in the eye of law. It is also submitted that the learned trial Judge committed error by holding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to get payment towards supply of goods, on the ground that the supply order was obtained fraudulently. It is further submitted, by the learned Counsel, that, as the Respondents-Defendants had duly received the good supplied and admitted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial