MS. KALPANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Sec. 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 9.10.2002 by which the suit of the appellant / plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,65,000/ - was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the appellant / plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the appellant / plaintiff was under an agreement given a room in the school premises of the defendant No. 2 / respondent No. 2 for tailoring purposes and which contract originally was from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991. The contract was extended upto 31.3.1992. It was alleged that the school uniforms had to be made available once the session began and the uniforms stitched for the students of the respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 2 were such that they could not be used by anybody else. It was pleaded that the respondent No. 2 refused to extend the contract and at which time, the appellant / plaintiff had a stock of school uniforms worth Rs. 2,33,709/ -. It was further the case of the appellant / plaintiff that this stock was accepted by respondent No. 2 / defendant No. 2 at 20% discount on the rate list and were to be sold from INS India Canteen, but uniforms worth only Rs. 6,298/ - could be sold. It was finally pleaded that on 4.6.1994 the lock of the room was found to be removed along with the entire stock of uniforms etc and, therefore, the appellant / plaintiff lodged a case of theft in Chanakaya Puri Police Station. The said stock was insured with the insurance company, i.e. the defendant No. 3 in the suit. The subject suit was filed for recovery of moneys being the value of the stitched uniforms.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which are Union of India and School respectively contested the suit on the ground that Union of India was not a necessary party because the school was being run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which was a separate legal entity. It was further pleaded by the defendant No. 2 / respondent No. 2 / School that there was no contract with the appellant / plaintiff for the appellant / plaintiff keeping ready a particular number of uniforms and all that the contract envisaged was a room being given to the appellant / plaintiff from where she carried out her tailoring activities for privately providing uniforms to the students who would place orders for the same. It was argued that the appellant / plaintiff refused to vacate the room after refusal to grant her extension, and therefore, after information to the police, the possession of the room was taken back and the stock was thereafter kept in safe custody. The defendant No. 3, insurance company pleaded that there was no theft and the police itself did not pursue the complaint lodged on the ground of theft and the FIR was not pursued as no theft was found.