AMRIT JUTE CO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellants' suit based upon weighment certain food-grains by the respondents has been dismissed by the learned subordinate Judge, Purnea on the sole ground that notice as contemplated under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been validly served upon them. The plaintiffs have appealed and maintained that there has been no defect in the suit for want of notice. The facts are not in controversy.

(2.) Under a certain grains supply scheme of the State Government, the plaintiffs were appointed foodgrains stockistcum-transporting agents in the year 1958. The plaintiff executed an agreement in favour of the State Government, under which they were entitled to be remunerated for their acts as the agent and the stockist of the foodgrains in their godown. The said agreement expired on 31-3-1961. Although the agreement expired, the stock of foodgrains with the plaintiff were not removed till June, the by the respondents. The plaintiffs had deposited security money to the extent of Rs. 7,000/- with the respondent- State Government. They were not paid any rent nor their security deposit was refunded. They had other outstanding claims. They, accordingly, served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the respondents and after the expiry of the period of notice, filed a money suit. On all other issues, that were raised on behalf of the parties, the suit has been decided in favour of the appellants. They have been defeated on the sole ground that the notice under Section 80 had not been validly served. The respondents in their written statement did not reply upon the 1956 agreement, but relied upon the agreement between the parties created in the year 1962 and said that under the new agreement, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any rent for the stock in their possession. They further said that there were claims for the damages caused to the foodgrains J. From a decision of Shri Harihar Charan Choudhry, Subordinate Judge, Purnea, dated 21st of March, 1970, when in custody of the plaintiffs and the respondents were entitled to adjust their claims and claim set off accordingly.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for Rs. 4,669.56 for the balance of the bills which have been checked and passed but partly paid a sum of Rs. 1,674.66, Rs. 371.37, and Rs. 386.22 and, thus, are entitled to a decree of Rs. 6,101.81 minus the price of the shortage of grains found on physical verification at the gazette rate after deducting the price of 1% permissible shortage therefrom. The learned Sub ordinate Judge has also foumd that the plaintiffs are entitled to get refund of their security money. Having so held, he has, however, held that the suit has got to fail as the notice under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been validly served.