GAJANAND CHIMANLAL Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisional application at the instance of the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 21 of 1968 and is directed against two orders dated January 31, 1979 and April 16, 1979 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, alipore, in the aforesaid suit. By the first order the learned Subordinate Judge rejected an application under Section 152 read with section 153 of the Code filed by the plaintiff praying for correcting certain error in the decree. By the second order impugned in this revisional application the learned Subordinate Judge refused the similar prayer made again on an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application Is being heard on contest by the defendant opposite party.

(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for recovery of the unpaid value of the goods supplied to the defendant under certain bills together with interest. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint the plaintiff's case was that he had supplied goods to the tune of Rs. 24,811. 13 paise, but had received only a sum of Rs. 6701. 48 paise leaving an unpaid balance of Rs. 18,109. 65 paise. In paragraph 5 the plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to get a decree for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 18,109. 65 paise together with interest at 12 percent from the date on which payment was due. Though in the plaint itself there had been no clear recital Of the calculation of the interest claimed, it appears that a sum of Rs. 6,500/-was claimed as interest up to the date of the suit and it is not disputed before us that this amount was calculated, calculating the interest at 12 percent. Thus, the total claim laid by the plaintiff was the sum of rs. 24,609. 65 paise.

(3.) THIS suit was contested by the defendant opposite party by filing a written statement. The defendants denied their liability to pay the sum of Rs. 18,109. 65 paise on various grounds including a ground that the goods supplied were not according to the specification. In the written statement they further claimed certain deduction.