INDRAWADHAN KANTILAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original defendant challenging the decree dated December 24, 1971, passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Aurangabad, in Civil Appeal No. 189 of 1970 which had been preferred by the defendant against the decree dated September 24, 1970, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Regular Civil suit No. 118 of 1968.

(2.) The original suit was filed by the plaintiff the State of Maharashtra for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,335-45 p. as per particulars mentioned in the plaint and being, according to the plaintiff, amount paid in excess to the defendant in relation to the suit contract regarding supply of certain materials by the defendant to the plaintiff for the purposes of construction of the Jalna-Mantha road between mile No. 35 to mile No. 52. Thesuit claim was denied and contested by the defendant by his written statement at Ex. 12. The trial Court framed as many as 14 issues and answering the same in favour of the plaintiff decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The said decree was confirmed by the learned Assistant Judge in appeal preferred there from by the defendant. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant.

(3.) It is not necessary to deal with this matter in detail because, after hearing the Advocates for the respective parties, I am of the view that on the most crucial question involved in the present litigation there is absence of proper and sufficient evidence on record. The said crucial question is as to whether the defendant had, under the contract in question, supplied material of the contracted quality. It is on this question that the plaintiff's claim revolves. If the material supplied is found not to be of the contracted quality, then the plaintiff can be said to have a claim against the defendant. But if the material supplied is found to be in fact of the contracted quality, then the entire basis of the suit may fail