STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAGHUNATH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certificate under Article 133(l)(a) of the Constitution. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the suit as brought is maintain able.

(2.) The relevant facts are these. The appellant, the State of Orissa appointed the respondent as its agent on August 28, 1953 under Ex.A for purchasing paddy on its behalf. Under Clause 5 of that agreement the respondent was responsible for financing of the transactions made but the Collector may at his discretion grant him such advance or advances not exceeding 85 per cent of the visible stock in his depots. Advances in excess of 85 per cent may only be granted with the prior sanction of the Government. Clause 7 of the agreement prescribes the commission payable to the respondent. Clause 13(1) is important for our present purpose. That clause reads : Payment to Agents--(a) At the end of each month the Agent shall submit bill to the Collector in respect of all food-grains issued on the directions of the Collector or officers authorised by him in this behalf for final disposal during the said month in which he may charge :

(3.) No payment shall be claimed or made before final disposal of stocks on the directions of competent authority. The expression/final disposal is defined in the agreement thus. "Final disposal shall mean disposal of stocks made by the agent in accordance with the order of the Collector". The other terms of the agreement are not relevant for deciding this appeal. The agreement entered into in 1953 was continued under Exh. B dated January 6, 1954. The respondents case is that he supplied to the appellant 4675 mds of paddy in Nov. 1953 and submitted his bill as per Clause 13 of the agreement but the amount due was not paid. In respect of that bill he claimed Rs. 42890/11/6. He further claimed Rs. 28748/11/6 towards the paddy supplied between December 1, 1953 to November 30, 1954. On those amounts he claimed interest. The trial court decreed the principal amount claimed but declined to grant interest as well as costs of the suit. In appeal the High Court not only affirmed the decree of the trial court but in -addition it allowed interest" on the same for the period subsequent to the institution of suit. Further it allowed him the costs of the suit as well as the appeal. The appellant did not dispute that the respondent was entitled to the price of paddy claimed by him but it resisted the suit on the ground that the suit as brought was not maintainable. According to it, the respondent should have brought a suit for accounts. In that connection it averred that in March, 1953, the respondent had failed to supply 819.7 mds. of paddy valued at Rs. 72,476/4/0 through he had realised that amount and it is entitled to adjust that amount towards the amount payable to the respondent. It was urged on its behalf that if a suit for accounts had been brought, the accounts between the parties could have been worked out. The other pleas taken in the-written statement were given up at one stage or the other.