DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) THE suit was for recovery of goods sold and delivered. A written statement of the Defendant No. 1 was found on record. However, none appeared for the Defendant No. 1 at the time of hearing of the suit. The plaintiff at the instance of the Defendant No. 1 sold and delivered 84 search lights, lamps and control gears to the Defendant No. 2. The Defendant No. 2 paid the value of the supplies to the plaintiff by demand draft. The Defendant No. 1 acted in breach of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 necessitating the plaintiff to file the present suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the suit applied for interim relief with regard to the demand draft on which various interlocutory orders were passed. On such interlocutory application by an Order dated July 9, 1993 the Hon 'ble Court appointed a Receiver who was directed to collect the draft and to keep such draft in safe custody. Subsequently by an Order dated September 4, 1993 the Receiver was discharged and Joint Receivers were appointed. The Joint Receivers were directed to encash the bank draft and keep the proceeds thereof in an interest bearing fixed deposit. The Joint Receivers were Arun Chandra Mukherjee, Advocate of record of the plaintiff and Mrs. Heera Jain, Advocate. The plaintiff disclosed various documents and produced one witness at the hearing of the suit. I have considered the pleadings of the parties and the exhibits as well as the oral evidence on record.
(3.) THE plaintiff was a manufacturer of search lights of various types. The Defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff for manufacture of 150 numbers of search lights, lamps and control gears. The Defendant No. 1 had an order from the Defendant No. 2 dated December 29, 1992. The Defendant No. 2 was the Director of Industries, Stores Purchase Department, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur and the Defendant No. 3 was the Inspector General of Prisons, Uttar Pradesh, Government of Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 agreed amongst themselves that the plaintiff would act as the agent of the Defendant No. 1 and would deliver the goods to the Defendant No. 3. The plaintiff would receive back to back payment from the Defendant No. 1 for the supplies. The plaintiff would receive 95% of the value of the goods. For such purchase the plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 would open a Bank Account at Lucknow. The Defendant No. 1 placed order for 84 pieces of the goods for supply to the Defendant No. 2. The plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant No. 2. Bills in this regard were raised by the plaintiff on the Defendant No. 1. A chart showing the details of the Bills, relevant lorry receipts by which the goods were supplied and the consignment notes was prepared by the plaintiff and marked as exhibit. The plaintiff established supply of 84 pieces of goods. The fact that the plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant No. 2 would appear from the issuance of the demand draft by the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to the plaintiff. A copy of the demand draft was also marked as an exhibit in the suit.;