AMARJEET SINGH BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.1990 passed by Sri Bhagwan Prasad Singh, 7th Additional District Judge, Purnea, in Money Appeal Nos. 1/89/7/87 and 2/89/9/87 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.7.87 passed by Sri S.B. Singh, Sub -Judge, Purnea, in Money Suit No. 27 of 1985, whereby he had decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -appellant, in brief, is that in response to notice by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Purnea, the plaintiff -appellant submitted a quotation for supply of machineries to respondent -defendant no. 5 on the price of rupees thirty thousand. The said quotation was accepted by the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, Purnea and, accordingly, he issued a letter of acceptance on 31.3.82. Through the said letter he took responsibilities to pay the said price towards supply of machineries to defendant no, 5. Thereafter, the plaintiff - appellant supplied the machineries to respondent -defendant no. 5 on 31.3.82, who granted receipt in token of supply of machineries on the back of the bill and also put his signature. The delivery of the machinery was verified by the manager himself on 31.3.82. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted the bill before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Purnea, for payment of the price but the price was not paid and then the plaintiff sent notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure but even after that when the price was not paid the plaintiff instituted the money suit for realisation of the price of machineries and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 11,000/ -.

(3.) THE case of defendant no. 5, in brief, is more or less same as made out by defendant nos. 1 to 4. However, it has been admitted that defendant no. 5 was running a Aafa Chakki and Oil Mill from before 1981 and for purchase of machineries he came in contact with plaintiff with whom friendship developed. It is further stated that the plaintiff proposed to get the whole machinery replaced by new one and assured the defendant no. 5 to make loan available for purchase of new machineries from the Industry Department, Govt. of Bihar, stating that he had got personal contact with the General Manager of the said department. Defendant No. 5 agreed to the proposal and thereafter the plaintiff obtained signature of defendant no. 5 on several papers including blank vouchers but the machineries were not supplied to defendant no. 5 and later on those blank papers having signatures of defendant no. 5 were converted into documents and hence prayer was made to dismiss the suit.