MAHARAJ SINHA,J. - (1.) On 5 August 2011, the plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants essentially for specific delivery of the goods as mentioned in claim (a) of the plaint and alternatively, in the event specific delivery of the goods cannot be had, decree for Rs. 43,31,474.71p as mentioned in claim (b) of the plaint. The other claims made in the plaint, namely claims (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) need not be stated in detail.
(2.) After the institution of the suit, although the writ of summons was duly served upon the defendants, the defendants did not even enter appearance to contest the suit. The necessary certificate in this regard issued by the department concerned signed by the Deputy Registrar, Original Side dated 11 January 2012 is kept on record duly countersigned.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff appointed the 1st defendant, a partnership firm, as redistribution stockiest of the goods manufactured by the plaintiff. On the basis of such appointment, the goods of the plaintiff were sold and delivered to the 1st defendant for a total sum of Rs. 43,31,474.71p. Invoices of the goods so delivered were raised by the plaintiff and accepted by the 1st defendant.;