WAXOLEX ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff of Money Suit no.25 of 1993 (M/s Waxolex Enterprises v. The State of Bihar & Ors.), has preferred this civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and challenges the order dated 13.8.2004, passed on its application for review of a portion of the judgment and decree passed in the suit.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this civil revision application may be indicated. The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the business of supply of goods. The State of Bihar had issued tender notice dated 15.9.1983, for purchase of Tarpaulin (Tripal). The petitioner submitted its tender. The State of Bihar placed orders with the petitioner for supply of tarpaulin by order dated 29.9.83. The supplies were ultimately made in December 1985 January 1986. The petitioner had submitted his bill dated 19.12.1985, for a sum of Rs.2,64,956.31p. The payments were not made leading to the aforesaid Money Suit no.25/93, which was decreed by judgment dated 30.4.2004. It was ordered that the petitioner (the plaintiff) shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,64,956.31p. plus 5% interest during the pendency of the suit, and a further interest @5% for the period 23.9.1992 to 30.11.1993. The petitioner (the plaintiff) felt aggrieved by this part of the order whereby interest at a low rate was granted to it leading to an application for review of the order. The same has been rejected by the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that it is not a fit case for review the same, and the same can be achieved by the petitioner by moving a superior court. Hence this civil revision application.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner is a small-time businessman and he did not receive payment of the supplies for a long time. He, therefore, instituted the suit on 21.12.93, which was decreed by judgment dated 30.4.2004. The State of Bihar did not prefer appeal against the same. No part of the judgment and decree has so far been paid to him. The petitioner now raises a grievance with respect to rate and the manner in which the interest has been paid.