- (1.)THIS is defendants appeal. The suit giving rise to the present second appeal was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the defendant-appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,700.
(2.)THE plaintiffs case was that the; plaintiff carried on transport business under the name and style of U.P. Government Roadways throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh; the defendant was an Army Service Corps Contractor in the year 1950; the defendant as such had to supply all types of transport to the Military Officers at Dehradun; that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the defendant used to secure vehicles from the plaintiff-appellant from time to time to fulfil his obligation to supply transport vehicles to the Army Service Corps; the defendant had undertaken to pay the hire charges to the plaintiff for the same. From 28th April 1950 to 26th September, 1950, the plaintiff supplied to the defendant transport vehicles for the use of the Military Officers on different dates and a sum of Rs. 6,223-11-9 became due to the plaintiff from the defendant on account of the said hire charges. The plaintiff, however, filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,700 only.
The suit was contested by the defendant. It was admitted by the defendant in his written statement that the plaintiff did carry on transport business under the name and style of the U.P. Government Roadways. It was also admitted by the defendant that he was a Military Contractor. The defendant, however, alleged that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the plaintiff really had supplied trucks and taxis directly to the Military Authorities and that the obligation to pay the hire charges, therefore, was on the Military Authorities.

(3.)THE trial Court arrived at the conclusion that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. On such finding, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit.