STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SASHIBHUSAN MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Orissa which was the defendant in the suit has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff brought the suit for relief of declaration that defendant is not entitled to recover Rs. 3000/ - from the plaintiff as claimed in the Certificate Case No. 1036/66 -67 in the Court of the Certificate Officer, Banapur, and for a decree of Rs. 1000/ - against the defendant and also further prayed for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant from taking any coercive process to recover the amount of Rs 3000/ - from him under the aforesaid certificate case.

(2.) THE claim of the plaintiff briefly stated is that he was a registered railway contractor in 1964 and under the agreement between him and the railways he was to supply black metal to the railway authorities, For the purpose of execution of such contract, he wanted to work out Badapokharia black metal quarry which was put to auction in March, 1964 and the bid was knocked down in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4000/ -. There was, however, inordinate delay in the confirmation of the bid and he was called upon only on 1 -9 -1964 to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/ - which he deposited by way of security deposit. No agreement however was executed in respect of the contract and possession of the quarry was not handed over to him. Due to such delay in execution of the lease and compliance of other formalities, the period stipulated with the railway authorities expired and the year of 'contract also lapsed. Thus while the plaintiff was entitled to refund of security deposit made by him, yet instead of refund of the deposit, a certificate case was started in 1966 against him for recovery of the balance of consideration of the lease amount and hence the plaintiff instituted the suit for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) THE learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri, who was the trial Court found that the quarry was delivered to the plaintiff for operating the same and that be had received the work order. The contract of the plaintiff with the railways was. irrelevant so far as consideration of his liability under the contract to the, State Government is concerned and that the absence of written agreement is of no consequence. He further held that the question whether the plaintiff had not done any substantial work in the quarry is of no relevance and hence on such findings, he dismissed the suit.