SHADI RAM MOHINDRA Vs. HARBANS LAL SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Execution Second Appeal No. 381 of 1952 and Civil Revision No. 131-D of 1953. These matters have arisen in the following circumstances : Shadi Ram Mohindra obtained a contract on 14th of April, 1944, for the manufacture and supply of 2000 stretchers to the Government. He entered into an agreement with Harbans Lal Sehgal by which the latter was appointed a sub-contractor by Shadi Ram. On 23rd of June, 1947, Harbans Lal filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,000 on the allegation that Shadi Ram had committed breaches of various conditions of the agreement between the parties with the consequence that the plaintiff had suffered a loss of Rs. 16,086/8/- out of which he had recovered Rs. 9,900 from the defendant leaving a balance of Rs. 5,761/8/- which are due to the plaintiff. He, however, gave up Rs. 761/8/- and limited his claim to the recovery of Rs. 5,000 only. The defendant while admitting the agreement denied any breach of any term of the agreement between the parties and he also did not admit the correctness of the various items claimed by the plaintiff. One of the items claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was the price of 434 stretchers supplied to the defendant but which it is alleged were rejected by the Government. On this matter the trial Court held in the judgment dated 31st of August, 1948-

(2.) Excluding this item the trial Court, however, found that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 9,640 while he had received Rs. 13,700 from the defendant, and on this finding the suit was dismissed. This calculation, however, did not include the price of 434 stretchers and the matter of the price of 434 stretchers was not incorporated in the decree framed by the trial Court. The plaintiff appealed and besides other items he claimed that the defendant was liable to pay for the stretchers as they were admittedly in his possession. The Additional District Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to receive Rs. 10,185 while he had received Rs. 13,700 from the defendant and for this reason dismissed the appeal. As regards the 434 stretchers, he observed in the judgment-

(3.) This last direction was incorporated in the decree and the relevant portion of that decree reads-