LACHMINARAIN LALCHAND Vs. GOLABCHAND DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of an order of a Full Bench of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes dated June 29, 195-3, by which a suit brought by the Plaintiff opposite party was decreed in part. The Plaintiff opposite party instituted a suit against the Defendant Petitioner for realisation of Rs. 1,796-15-6 pies as the price of goods sold and delivered together with a sum of Rs. 103-0-6 pies as interest thereon at 12 per cent, per annum in the Calcutta Court of Small Causes. The price related to 32 pieces of "Krishna" coating of which 23 bundles were of the mark 150 with the specified width of 28/29 inches and the remaining 9 bundles of width of 27 inches. The Defendant failed and neglected to pay the price of the goods sold and delivered to him inspite of demands whereafter the present suit was instituted.

(2.) The Petitioner who was the Defendant in the court below contested the proceedings and filed a written statement. The case which the Defendant made before the trial Judge was that the transaction had taken place through one Bridhi Nahata, a broker, and he purchased from the Plaintiff 23 pieces of 'Krishna' coating bearing mark 150 of the width of 28/29 inches and also 9 pieces of "Krishna'' coating with the mark 150A of the width of 28/29 inches but in violation of the terms of the contract the Plaintiff had delivered to him 23 pieces marked 150 of the contracted width, that is to say, 28/29 inches but the 9 pieces marked 150A which had also been delivered by the Plaintiff were of short width, that is to say, 27 inches only in place of 28/29 inches as contracted for. In these circumstances, the Defendant averred that he had rejected the entire lot of 32 pieces and communicated this rejection to the Plaintiff.

(3.) The 3rd Bench of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes came to try this suit; and by an order, dated June 29, 1953, that court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on contest with cost. It was found inter alia that the contracted goods were not supplied and consequently, the Defendant was within his rights to refuse to accept the goods and pay for them.