L HARISH CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question, which arises for determiation in this Regular First appeal filed by Hasish Chandcrp a ntilY appellant against Union of India, is whether the appellant served a valid notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below answered the question in the negative and dismissed the plaintiffs suit on that ground alone.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in December 1948 the Assistant Controller. Printing and Stationary, Estern Punjab Railway, placed an order wi(h thJ plaintiff for the Binding of 23000 Guard Limp Cover Piles. The files were to be stitched in books with three patches of cloth parted inside. The plaintiff carried out the work and delivered the files after doing the needful. A dispute then arose between the parties with regard the rate at which the plaintiff was to be paid for the work done by him. According to the plaintiff, the payment for the work done was to be made at the rate of eight annas per file, whereas the railway authoriies allege that the Payment was to be made in accordance with the rate- mentioned in the Government Schedule. The railway authorities paid Rs. 4,076.00/ 3.00 to the plaintiff in accordance with the rates mentioned in the Government Schedule. The plaintiff on the other hand claimed that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,500.00 at the rate of eight annas per file. After givi- ng credit for the amount already received, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 7.42/13.00 against the defendant. According to the plaintiff. before filing the suit he served a notice through his counsel Mr. Radhey Mohan Lal, Advocate on 22nd May 1950 on the competent officers and the Governirent under the section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The defendant in the written statement admitted the receipt of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure but challenged the validity of the same. A number of other pleas were raised, but we aie not concerned with them. Issue No. 1, as framed in the case was :-