BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.  - (1.) The appeal is at the instance of the first defendant in the suit who has suffered a decree dated 28th August, 2014 in a summary proceeding under the provisions of the Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Hon'ble Court and have challenged the same. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are respectively the plaintiff and the proforma defendant in the suit.
(2.) The case of the respondent no.1/plaintiff as made out in the plaint and the application for summary judgment being G.A. No. 256 of 2013 is briefly as follows:- i) The respondent no. 1/ plaintiff is an Airline Company of well-repute and is a member of respondent no.2/proforma defendant (IATA), an international trade body. The appellant/defendant no. 1 is a travel agent and is also a member of respondent no. 2/ proforma defendant. ii) The respondent no.1 /plaintiff as the member of the respondent no. 2/proforma defendant has entered into an working arrangement whereby and whereunder tickets of respondent no.1/plaintiff airlines can be booked by any travel agent/agency which is also a corresponding member of respondent no.2/proforma defendant. iii) The appellant/defendant No.1 through respondent no.2/proforma defendant places orders and /or books and/or blocks tickets/seats in respondent no.1/plaintiff airlines. iv) The payment of the price of tickets are made by the appellant/defendant no.1 as per Bill Settlement Plan (in short BSP) of respondent no.2/proforma defendant which is a fortnightly cycle as per the rules of the said respondent. The respondent no.2/proforma defendant on realising payments from the appellant/defendant no.1 pays the same to the respondent no.1/plaintiff. v) The appellant/defendant no.1 allegedly made default for two cycles for the period between 16th March, 2011 and 31st March, 2011 and 1st April, 2011 and 15th April, 2011. vi) The respondent no.1/plaintiff in view of non- receipt of the price of the tickets sold to the appellant/plaintiff took up the matter with the respondent no.2/proforma defendant who ultimately declared the appellant/defendant no.1 as a defaulter. vii) The respondent no.2/proforma defendant thereafter invoked the bank guarantee which had been provided by the appellant/ defendant no.1 to the respondent no.2/proforma defendant and adjusted the sum realised therefrom. The respondent no.2/proforma defendant on prorata basis paid a sum of Rs.2, 24, 825/- to the respondent no. 1/plaintiff out of the amount realized by it from the bank guarantee provided by the appellant/defendant no.1. viii) The respondent no.1/plaintiff thereafter caused to be issued a notice dated 28th July, 2012 to the appellant/defendant no.1 claiming a principal sum of Rs. 34, 09, 689/- with interest @ 18% per annum. The appellant/defendant no.1 replied to the advocate's notice issued by the respondent no.1/plaintiff by an advocate's letter dated 28th July, 2012 wherein as alleged by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff the appellant/defendant no.1 admitted some contractual payments.
(3.) In support of its claim the Respondent no.1/plaintiff has relied upon several documents which includes the extract of BSP from Passenger Agency Conference Resolution manual, BSP/billing analysis for the two defaulted cycles, correspondences primarily between itself and the respondent no.2/proforma defendant, its advocates notice and the appellant's reply thereto through its advocate. The BSP appears to be a document prepared by the respondent no.2/proforma defendant and supplied to the respondent no.1/plaintiff. It also appears from the BSP that the same pertains to several travel agents, the appellant/defendant no.1 is one of them. From the correspondences annexed it appears that as per the BSP records of respondent no.2/proforma defendant as on 4th August, 2011 a sum of INR 1, 71, 44, 913/- remained unrecoverable toward international from the appellant/defendant no.1. In the reply to the notice of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant no.1 has alleged that there is no binding privity of payment with respondent no.2/proforma defendant, which fact according to it has been admitted by the respondent no.1/plaintiff. It has also alleged to have been carrying out contractual payment obligation with the said respondent no.2/proforma defendant. There is, however, no affidavit from the respondent no.2/proforma defendant either supporting or controverting the allegation and counter allegation made by the respondent no.1/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant no.1.;