BIRENDRA CHANDRA BISWAS Vs. RATAN CHANDRA DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 96 of the CPC arises from the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2015 delivered in Money Suit No.06/2011 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati District, Udaipur. By the said judgment and decree dated 26.09.2015, the said money suit has been dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment dated 26.09.2015 is unwarranted in law and facts inasmuch as the findings so recorded in the judgment emanates from non-reading, misreading and erroneous appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary. According to the appellant the refusal to admit the copies of challans showing the delivery of bricks and brick bats by the plaintiff to the defendant is unsustainable in law inasmuch as those challans were created in the ordinary course of business. Finally, the appellant has asserted that had there been proper appreciation of the evidence, the suit ought to have been decreed in his favour.

(2.) For purpose appreciation of the appeal, the case as projected by the plaintiff and the defendant may briefly be noted. The plaintiff, the appellant herein, owns a brick kiln named and styled as M/S Parul Bricks Industry at Khilpara, Udaipur. In the month of August 2009, the defendant approached him with a proposal 'to share some contract works received from the Public Work Department (PWD, in short). For this purpose, the defendant had shown the copies of the work orders for improvement of roads. The plaintiff being attracted by the said proposal purportedly entered in an agreement on 13.08.2009 to share the profits and loss of the contract works by supplying bricks/bats and brick - pickets to be required for execution of the works and also providing cash loan in case of urgent necessity. On the request of the defendant, the plaintiff delivered two signed blank papers to the defendant to meet the necessity for transaction of the said contract work.

(3.) It has been apprehended in the plaint that those papers might be misused by the defendant to cause harm to the plaintiff. Within a few days, the plaintiff could learn that such contract was not valid in the eye of law, moreover the agreement so entered into, did not contain the particulars of the work orders. Thus, the plaintiff abandoned the said agreement w.e.f. 30.08.2009. On such abandonment, a new arrangement had been made for supply of brick, brick bats and brick-pickets 'on credit' and the cost of which could be liquidated on receipt of payment of the running bills from time to time in force of execution of those works. It had been, according to the plaintiff further contemplated that for liquidation payment be made from final bills on completion of the works. Even the plaintiff agreed to provide cash loan to meet the urgent necessity. That was an 'oral' agreement and the rate was also agreed thereunder according to the plaintiff. The rate schedule as agreed has been provided in the plaint. The rate-schedule reads as under: