- (1.) HEARD Sri Tanveer Alam Khan, coun sel for the revisionist and Sri Sudhir Kumar, counsel for respondents.
(2.) BY the present revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 17-12-2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Suit No. 46 of 2000 on the application filed by the defendant bearing No. 46 Ka by which the amendment in the form of Counter Claim has been allowed. Briefly stated, the-suit was filed by the plaintiff-revisionist for a recovery of Rs. 3,30,453. 36 on the ground that the plain tiff company is registered under the pro visions of Companies Act and is carrying on the business of producing allied prod ucts at its unit situate at RO. Kichha, District - Udham Singh Nagar. According to the case of the plain tiff, the defendant was offered to supply of the gas cylinder to the plaintiff. On 01-08-1997, the defendant issued a letter in response to offer to supply Oxygen Gas Cylinders having 1800 to 2000 L. B. S. pressure at the rate of Rs. 19. 50 per cu bic mtr. and dissolved Acetylene Gas Cyl inders having capacity of 1. 5 kg. pressure equal to 1 cubic meter at the rate of Rs. 138. 00 per cubic mtr. In the terms and conditions of the purchase order it was clearly mentioned by the plaintiff that the pressure of Cylinders of Oxygen should be 1800 to 2000 L. BS. and in case under the circumstances the Cylinders have less than specified pressure are accepted, pro portionate deductions regarding downfall of the pressure shall be made from the bill of the defendant.
(3.) THE plaintiff has submitted that till 20-09-1997 the defendant supplied 134 Cylinders of D. A. Gas and 195 Cylinders of Oxygen Cylinders (Approximately), while the consumption rate should be 2. 5 to 3 Oxygen Cylinder per D. A. Cylinder. This consumption was itself showing that the Cylinders having dissolved Acetylene Gas was having the Gas below to stand ard ratio. The plaintiff informed the defend ant on 22-09-1997, that the Gas Cylin ders having 'gas below the standard ratio but the defendant did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff and contin ued to supply the gas cylinders below the standard ratio and such the plaintiff has suffered a loss of Rs. 2,48,461. 34 exces sively on the bills raised by the defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff issued letter dated 1st July, 1997 to the defendant request ing him to arrange lifting of empty gas cylinders after getting no dues certificate from the account department of the plain tiff, but the defendant did not pay any attention to the request of the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff by way of notice dated 20-07-1998, which was responded promptly on 13-11-1998. The plaintiff again issued a notice dated 06-09-1999 through his Advocate and after receipt of that notice, the defendant has not paid even a single penny to the plaintiff.;