POPSINGH MAHADEO PRASAD Vs. DIPCHAND RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Balasore, dismissing his suit. The facts leading up to this appeal are these.

(2.) The plaintiff was appointed as a sub-agent under Raghunath Rai Hargovind Ltd. (defendant No. 1) who was appointed as a purchasing agent by the State of Orissa acting through the Collector of Balasore (defendant no. 2). This appointment was made under the Central Purchasing Scheme for the year 1943. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the plaintiff was to procure stocks of rice and paddy requisitioned or otherwise, despatch and dispose of the same from time to time under the orders and directions of the defendants. The defendants were to pay to the plaintiff the prime costs, as well as other incidental charges such as costs of sewing, bagging handling, storage and all other costs of transport including the charges for gunny incurred by him from time to time in connection with the sub-agency. The plaintiff was to get commission at the approved rate. At the termination of the agency, the defendants were to re-settle the accounts with the plaintiff and pay the balance if any. Thus, it is alleged by the plaintiff that in pursuance of the said agreement the plaintiff procured and disposed of 4294 maunds and 19 seers of paddy and 35, 603 maunds and 26 seers of rice in accordance with the directions of the defendants and incurred certain, incidental charges for sewing, bagging, storage and handling etc. Out of the total costs of Rs. 1,25,545-12-3, the plaintiff has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,500-10-3 including the price of 990 maunds of rice disposed locally and a cash advance of Rs. 10,000/- received from the first defendant. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 15,0452-0 or in the alternative the amount that would be found due to him on taking accounts from the defendants.

(3.) Both the defendants contested the suit. It, was contended On behalf of the State of Orissa (defendant no. 2) that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and defendant No. 2 is not a necessary party to the suit. There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant and as such the plaintiff cannot claim any relief against the second defendant.