RAMDEO SARMA Vs. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 23. 9. 2003, passed, in Money Appeal No. 3 of 2000, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kokrajhar, allowing the appeal and setting aside thereby the judgment and decree, dated 30. 9. 2002, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kokrajhar, in Money Suit No. 4 of 1999, whereby the learned trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum, with effect from 2. 6. 1999, until realization, of decretal amount with cost of the suit.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff may, in brief, be described thus : The plaintiff is, by profession, a carpenter and has a shop of making furniture, which he runs under the name and style of Ganga Furniture House at Kokrajhar Town. In the month of February/march, 1998, the defendant No. 3 placed order with the plaintiff for supply of six numbers of tables and two numbers of benches and also to repair furniture of his office. The plaintiff accordingly made the furniture and also did the repairing works of the furniture of the office of the defendant No. 3. The plaintiff, then, submit his bills, on 18. 1. 1998 and 3. 6. 1998, to the tune of Rs. 7,500/ -. When the bills were so submitted to the office of the defendant No. 3, who is an employee of the defendant No. 1, namely, Assam State Electricity Board (in short, 'the ASEB), a body corporate, the defendant No. 3, being an Assistant Executive Engineer of the ASEB, at Kokrajhar, the defendant No. 3 paid Rs. 1,000/- only to the plaintiff, but rest of the amount was not paid. Though the promises to make payment were made by the defendant No. 3, he (defendant No. 3) did not make payment of the plaintiff's bill despite repeated reminders. The plaintiff, then, served an advocate's notice, on the defendants, requesting them to make payment of his dues. Having failed to realize his dues, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 6,500/- and also a sum of Rs. 1,500/- for causing loss to him. The plaintiff also sought for interest on his unpaid dues.

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit, their case being, in brief, that the claim of the plaintiff was false and fictitious, no order for either making of furniture or repairing of furniture of the office of the defendant No. 3 was placed with the plaintiff. It was contended by the defendants that since the claim of the plaintiff is false and fictitious, the suit deserves to be dismissed.