H R SUGAR FACTORY Vs. RAM MOORTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five applications in revision have been connected together because they are directed against one judgment by which five suits were disposed of by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bareilly. These five suits were instituted by five different, Plaintiffs but the Defendants, in all of them were the same, the first Defendant being the H.R. Sugar Factory, Bareilly and the second being the District, Go-operative Sugarcane Society, Bareilly. The Plaintiffs alleged that they had supplied certain quantity of sugar-cane to the factory but the factory had failed to pay the price there of to the Plaintiffs in spite of demands having been made for it. The suits were, therefore, brought for the recovery of the price of the sugarcane supplied. All the five suits have been decreed against the factory alone. It is not, therefore, necessary, to refer to the defence raised by the society against which the suits have been dismissed. So far as the factory is concerned, the suits were defended on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not supply the sugarcane direct to the factory, that they may supply to the society, that there was no agreement between the factory and the Plaintiffs, that the factory was not liable to pay anything to the Plaintiffs for the supply of sugarcane and that the liability for the payment of price to the Plaintiffs was that of the society. It was further alleged on behalf of the factory that it had paid the price of the sugarcane supplied to the society. It was also pleaded that the claims were statute barred.

(2.) The findings of fact recorded by the courts below are that the agreement for the supply of the sugarcane was direct between the Plaintiffs and the factory, that there was no agreement between the Plaintiffs and the society for the supply of the sugarcane, that the supply was made by the Plaintiffs directly to the factory within the factory premises, that the factory had not made any payment in respect of this supply to the society and that claims were hot statute-barred.

(3.) The findings of fact recorded by the courts below are not open to question in a revision and the learned Counsel for the applicant has very properly not questioned them. He has attacked the decision of the court below on two points: