STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAJBALLAV MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below is the appellant in this second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff's case, in short, is that the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff through Sub-divisional Officer Hindol for the construction of a godown-cum-inspection room in village Banamalipur at an estimated cost of Rs. 5,000/- and he executed an agreement (Ext. 1/A, dated 21-3-1952) to that effect, and on 23-5-1952, 21-3- 1952 and 6-1-1953 he received advance payments in cash and also received 20 bags of cement priced at Rs. 105-15-0 on that account. Thus in all the plaintiff advanced Rupees 1305-15-0 to the defendant for the construction of the aforesaid work. The defendant after receiving the aforesaid payments did not complete the said construction work, and so by a notice dated 19-2-1953 the said contract was determined by the plaintiff. By the time the contract was determined, the defendant had done only a portion of the work, the value of which was estimated at Rupees 379-11-0. The plaintiff demanded the balance amount of Rs. 926-4-0 but the defendant did not pay the same. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the suit for the realisation of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 926-4-0 with interest at the rate or 6% per cent. per annum, all told amounting to Rs. 1816/-.

(3.) The defendant's case is that he did not execute the aforesaid agreement in his personal capacity but he did so as the Naib Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. According to the defendant, as the said agreement had been executed by him in the capacity of a Naib Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the plaintiff could not realise any amount personally from the defendant without impleading the Gram Panchayat in the suit. The defendant admits that he had received Rs. 1,200/- in cash and 20 bags of cement from the Sub-divisional Officer, Hindol on account of the said work, but he claims that he spent a sum of Rs. 1298-12-0 on the portion of the work done by him and so he demands Rs. 98-12-0 from the plaintiff. The defendant pleads that proper valuation and accounts of the construction work done by him should be made. It is vaguely pleaded that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The other pleas taken by the defendant in his written statement are not relevant for our purpose, and so they need not be stated in detail.