STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GANGADHAR SUBUDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN O.S. No. 961 in the Court of the Munsif, Puri, State of Orissa is the Plaintiff. Gangadhar Subudhi, son of Ram Chandra Subudhi is the Defendant. In M.S. No. 15661 Ram Chandra Subudhi is the Plaintiff and the State of Orissa through the Collector of Puri is the Defendant. Facts as mentioned in the plaint in O.S. No. 15661 may be narrated first. Plaintiff's case is that Shri M.P. Rath, A.D.M., Puri on behalf of the Collector of Puri directed the Plaintiff to supply papers to the Election Department through the head clerk, Shri Dayanidhi Samantaray, who committed suicide prior to the filing of the suit. Plaintiff supplied paper worth Rs. 1214.90nP. between 25 -11 -1958 and 20 -12.1958. Rs. 543.75 nP. was received by Gangadhar towards his dues. The suit is for recovery of the balance of Rs. 671.15nP.. The defence case is that there was no such agreement with the Plaintiff for supply of paper and the payment of Rs. 543.75 nP. was taken by Gangadhar on behalf of Ms. G.S. Dugal and Co. Ltd. with whom Government had transaction under misrepresentation. O.S. No. 961 was filed by the Collector of Puri for refund of Rs. 543.75nP. paid to Gangadhar. The defence in the second suit constitutes the subject matter of the plaint in the first suit. The defence in the first suit is the subject matter of the plaint in the second suit. Rightly both the cases were analogously heard. The trial Court accepted the case of the Collector. He accordingly decreed O.S. No. 961 dismissed M.S. No. 15661. Two appeals were filed by Ram Chandra Subudhi and his son Gangadhar Subudhi. M.A. No. 763 in the Court of the District Judge, Puri arises out of S. No. 961 and M.A. No. 863 corresponds to M.S. No. 15661. In appeal, the learned District Judge rejected the case of the State of Orissa and accepted the case of Ram Chandra Subudhi and his son that papers were supplied to the Election Department. He, however, held that Ram Chandra Subudhi was not entitled to any decree as there was no proof of contract existing between the parties. On the aforesaid findings he dismissed both the suits. In other words, he allowed M.A. No: 763 and dismissed M.A. No. 863. Against the decree in M.A. No. 763, the Second Appeal and against the decree in M.A. No. 863, the Civil Revision have been filed.

(2.) ON the finding of fact that papers were supplied by Ram Chandra Subudhi and portion of receipt ext. 1 was subsequently interpolated and that it was a payment towards papers supplied and that the State derived benefit from the supply of papers, the learned District Judge was correct in dismissing O.S. No. 961. The Second Appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs.

(3.) EVEN assuming that the finding of the District Judge cannot be assailed in Civil Revision, the position is well settled that even in the absence of a contract, the party deriving benefit or advantage must pay compensation for the equivalent value of the benefit derived. The matter is concluded by State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons : A.I.R 1962 S.C. 779. The learned District Judge exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity in not following the aforesaid Supreme Court decision.