STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HAND LOOM ARTICLES JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil first appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the decree passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jaipur City granting a decree for Rs. 17,680 as principal sum and interest thereon from the date of notice under S. 80 CPC till the institution of the suit @ Rs. 6% per annum with pendente lite and future interest.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff firm M/s Hand-loom Articles Stores Jaipur on an order by Inspector General of Prisons supplied 12 Pedal looms. According to the plaintiff the said 12 pedal looms were duly completed and installed at the Central Jail, Jaipur on 19th March, 1966, 22nd March, 1966 and 23rd March, 1966. The plaintiff further claimed that the bill for the same was duly passed after all physical and other verification but the said amount of Rs. 17,680/- remains unpaid. On 6th June, 1966 the plaintiff was informed that the amount is being withheld, awaiting final orders from the Government as the pedal looms in fact belonged to M/s Patusari Bunkar Samiti Samiti, Ltd. , were hyphotheticated with the Government. The plaintiff claimed that he was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice about the alleged pledge of the looms and hence he is entitled to payment for the goods supplied by him. The suit was filed on 17th May, 1969 i. e. within 3 years and 2 months under section 80 CPC of the supply of goods. The State Government contested the suit alleging that though 12 pedal looms were supplied brat only 6 were duly installed by the plaintiffs and objection about non execution of the contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution of India was also raised.

(3.) SHRI G. K. Garg, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has repudiated and controverted the allegations made by SHRI Pareek. According to him, the pleadings of the parties are to be scrutinised for framing of the issues Since the defendant did not contest the receipt of the pedal looms and the contest was limited to the non-installation of 6 pedal looms, the trial court was justified in placing the burden on the defendant-State.