Decided on March 15,1996

R.S. Construction Company Appellant


N.N. Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.)This is a suit for recovery of Rs 31,87.870/ - being the amount due -on account of a contract for supply of sand to the defendant along with other reliefs The plaintiff has appeared in person and as it appears to me. he has drafted and finalised the plaint himself. Apparently, the plaintiff having no legal background or expertise in the matter, the plaint is based on emotions and wishful thinking. In fact, he has made a mess of hiss claim. However, from his legal notice dated 26th October, 1978 served upon the defendant, it appears that pursuant to a tender dated 29th September. 1987 plaintiff submitted his offer for supply of" 8.000 Cu.m. of sand at the rate and under terms and conditions specified in the tender document. The tender was accepted by the defendant in its letter dated 16th November. 1987 It is plaintiffs case that he supplied a total quantity of 6953.41 Cu.m. of sand and the said quantity was taken delivery by the defendant though, however, the defendant granted him Inward Receipts for a quantity of 1798.61 Cu.m. and failed and neglected to grant Inward Receipt for the -balance quantity, it is his case that in accordance with the Inward Receipts granted by the defendant he was paid the total sum of Rs. 77042.82 p. and for the cost of the balance quantity the sum of Rs. 120788.60 p. is till due and payable by the defendant. If has been stated that out of the total quantity supplied, the quantity of 1484 Cu.m. had to be supplied at night under orders of the defendant for which he was also entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 19032/ - -at the extra rate of Rs. 15 per Cu.m. The security deposit amounting to Rs. 8.300/ - has also not been refunded in spite of repeated demands. In the legal notice it was urged that the plaintiff was entitled to receive interests on the aforesaid sums at the rate of Rs. 15 per cent per annum. In the plaint, however. the plaintiff has claimed cost amounting to Rs. 8 lacs, Rs. 1,47870/ - on account of unpaid interest Rs. 3,70.000/ - on account of further interest. Rs. 3 lacs on account of arbitration cost for 49 sittings and damages amounting to Rs. 23.66.000/ - making up his total claim to Rs. 31.87.870. It appears that the plaintiff went up to the Supreme Court with a special leave petition which was dismissed with the observation that it was open to him. if he was so advised, to apply to the Court to exempt him from payment of Court fee on his total claim if he is really an indigent person. By an order dated January 16th. 1990, Prabir Kr. Majumdar. J. on the basis of the materials on record held that plaintiff could not be treated as an indigent person and accordingly his application for giving him exemption from paying Court ice on his total claim at the initial stage failed and was dismissed.
(2.)The defendant CMC Authority contests the suit by filing a written statement. All the allegations of the plaint has been denied by the defendant. It has been stated that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Regarding delivery at night it has been stated that it was to plaintiffs convenience that night delivery was made in order that the same truck after delivery can go to the quarry site to fill in the truck during day time and that the defendant is not liable to pay any extra charge to the plaintiff It has also been stated that the defendant has already paid to the plaintiff whatever was due to him on the basis of receipts granted by the employees of the defendant alter getting the deliveries and that nothing is due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendant
(3.)Upon pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed
1) Is the suit barred by limitation ?

2) Is the plaintiff entitled to recover any sum from the defendant and if so, what is the amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover?

3) What relief , if arty, is the plaintiff entitled to ?

Findings with reasons therefor.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.