STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GULABDAS AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by defendant -State of M.P. and its functionaries assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.5.1999 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 18B/1994 decreeing the plaintiff's suit to the tune of Rs. 44,623.10 paise along with interest as mentioned in the impugned judgment. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that he is the proprietor of M/s. Naveen Art Press and carrying on the business of stationary. In the month of August, 1990 defendant No. 2, Executive Engineer (Building and Road) called the plaintiff in his office and in presence of Sub Divisional Officer No. 2 Shri R.B. Shrivastava, Divisional Accountant Shri P.N. Vishnoi and Head Clerk Shri Ram Sajeevan directed him to supply different type of stationary for the office of 2nd and 3rd defendants. He was also told that the bills should be given in the name of defendant No. 3 -Sub Divisional Officer No. 2 from where the payment will be made. The Executive Engineer further directed the plaintiff that on receiving the order slip of Shri Vishnoi and the Head Clerk, he should supply the stationary. Accordingly, the plaintiff started sending the stationary regularly and was also sending regular bills along with the slips which were being sent to him by defendant No. 3 on the basis of which the stationary was being supplied. The defendants were keeping the record of the stationary which was supplied by the plaintiff in the measurement book. Earlier also the plaintiff has supplied the stationary to the tune of Rs. 97,000/ -and its payment was also made by the defendants.

(2.) IT is the further case of the plaintiff that according to the directions of the Executive Engineer Mr. Tulsi, defendants No. 2 and 3 were sending the slips to the plaintiff to supply the stationary and accordingly the plaintiff supplied the stationary of Rs. 44,623.10/ -from 29.9.1991 to 9.4.1992. The details of the bills are mentioned along with the Schedule annexed to the plaint from which it is clear that on which particular date of how much amount the stationary was supplied. The entire endorsement of the stationary goods for the aforesaid period and the bill number etc. are mentioned in the measurement book. The stationary which was being supplied by the plaintiff has been endorsed in the stock register also. The defendants 2 and 3 have used the stationary which was supplied by the plaintiff.

(3.) A joint written statement has been filed by the defendants and denied the plaint averments. The stand of defendants is that defendant No. 3 never issued any order to the plaintiff to supply the stationary. The plaintiff has never supplied any stationary to the office of defendants 2 and 3. The factum of making payment of Rs. 17,000/ -towards the bills of plaintiff has been denied by the defendants. According to them, the said payment made to him is not related to the present dispute. It has also been denied that the stationary which was being supplied by the plaintiff was being endorsed in the stock register nor any endorsement has been made in the measurement book. Hence, it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed.