STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRATIBHA PRAKASH BHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Orissa represented by Collector, Sambalpur and also the Block Development Officer, Naktideul in the district of Sambalpur have preferred this appeal as against the judgment and decree passed against them by the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur (presently Civil Judge, Senior Division), in Money Suit No. 106 of 1977 as per the impugned judgment passed on 6-9-1980, while plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff as the Manager and Proprietor of Pratibha Prakash Bhawan, a Publisher and Printers and Govt. order suppliers was holding its business at Berhampur. On 14-3-1974 he received the order in the district of Sambalpur from defendant No. 2, for supply of Office stationery i.e. some categories of printed forms by transporting the same through Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. Berhampur and thereafter on 25-8-1974 he submitted the bill i.e. the cost of the printed forms calculating it at Rs. 11,500/-. Instead of making payment, the Defendant No. 2 made correspondence with the plaintiff as per its letter dated 11-10-1974 mentioning that 1600 numbers of Fly Leafs and 500 numbers of D. C. Bill forms were not received by it and that the articles supplied were in excess than the order supplied and further that the rate quoted in the bill is on the higher side. Plaintiff reiterated his contention relating to supply of the entire stock as per the bill and requested for payment. The long drawn correspondence between the parties when did not enure any result nor any payment was made by the Defendant No. 2, therefore, plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C. P. C.') as against the defendants and claimed for the aforesaid bill amount. Defendants did not respond to that notice nor made payment and, therefore, plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 11,500/- along with damage of Rs. 4,140/- at the rate of 12% for blocking of his capital. Thus he made a total claim of Rs. 15.640/- with pendente lite and future interest.

(3.) Defendants filed a joint written statement. In substance their plea was that no order was placed in the manner stated in the plaint, the order was not taken from the Defendant No. 2 by following due procedure and in any event the supply of the articles is not against indent or contract inasmuch as the printed forms not ordered were also supplied and there was shortage of the above noted two articles of forms i.e. Fly Leafs and D. C. Bill form. They also advanced the plea that the suit is not maintainable in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur because the cause of action arose in the district of Sambalpur and that plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.