GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil first appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the decree passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jaipur City granting a decree for Rs. 17,680 as principal sum and interest thereon from the date of notice under S. 80 CPC till the institution of the suit @ Rs. 6% per annum with pendente lite and future interest.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff firm M/s Hand-loom Articles Stores Jaipur on an order by Inspector General of Prisons supplied 12 Pedal looms. According to the plaintiff the said 12 pedal looms were duly completed and installed at the Central Jail, Jaipur on 19th March, 1966, 22nd March, 1966 and 23rd March, 1966. The plaintiff further claimed that the bill for the same was duly passed after all physical and other verification but the said amount of Rs. 17,680/- remains unpaid. On 6th June, 1966 the plaintiff was informed that the amount is being withheld, awaiting final orders from the Government as the pedal looms in fact belonged to M/s Patusari Bunkar Samiti Samiti, Ltd. , were hyphotheticated with the Government. The plaintiff claimed that he was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice about the alleged pledge of the looms and hence he is entitled to payment for the goods supplied by him. The suit was filed on 17th May, 1969 i. e. within 3 years and 2 months under section 80 CPC of the supply of goods. The State Government contested the suit alleging that though 12 pedal looms were supplied brat only 6 were duly installed by the plaintiffs and objection about non execution of the contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution of India was also raised. The main plea of the State Government was that the said looms were purchased by Patusari Bunkar Sahkari Samiti Ltd. on a loan and grant-in-aid advanced by the Industries Department to the said society and thus looms had been hypotheticated with the Government. The society could not have sold the said looms to the plaintiff without the permission of the Government till the entire loan were repaid by the society. The Director of Industries had lien and charged on all these looms and hence the plaintiff cannot claim payment for the goods on which the State Government had charged, unless the loan was repaid and charge was satisfied. The claim of the plaintiff that he was a bonafide purchaser from the Co-operative Society was also disputed. On the pleadings of the parties, seven issues were framed. In support of the issues framed, the parties led evidence, oral and documentary. The trial court on a discussion of the evidence held under issue No. 1 that the suit is within limitation, under issue No. 2 that execution of a formal contract as required under Art. 299 of the Constitution of India is not very material in this case as principle and provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act can be invoked; under issue No. 3 that the notice u/s 80, CPC was valid; under issue No. 4 that the plaintiff supplied 12 pedal looms in good condition and perfectly working order and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the payment thereof; and under issue No. 5 the plaintiff was held entitled to interest from the date of notice u/s 80 CPC. Thus the trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 17,680/-as mentioned above. Shri N. L. Pareek, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate submitted that there was no contract under Art. 299 of the Constitution of India as it was never executed by the parties and, therefore, the suit for enforcing any right based on any contract cannot be decreed. It was further argued that only 6 pedal looms were installed and other 6 were not installed and, therefore, the plaintiff could not have claimed the price. Shri Pareek then argued that the trial court was prejudiced and biased against the State and framed the issues putting burden on the State by an illegal approach to the case. According to Shri Pareek, the discussion of the evidence suffers from some infirmities and the judgment is vitiated because of the bias.
(3.) SHRI G. K. Garg, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has repudiated and controverted the allegations made by SHRI Pareek. According to him, the pleadings of the parties are to be scrutinised for framing of the issues Since the defendant did not contest the receipt of the pedal looms and the contest was limited to the non-installation of 6 pedal looms, the trial court was justified in placing the burden on the defendant-State. Shri Garg then argued that in any case, no protest was made by the State for placing the burden of proof of issue No. 4 on the State and the evidence was led voluntarily, and now it is too late to make any grievance on it. Shri Garg submitted that the judgment is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence and it is unjust and uncharitable against the judicial officer who is not present before the court, to allege that he is biased to the State without there being any data to support it. Shri Garg then submitted that the parties cannot be forced to execute the contract and, since it is sale of goods and, therefore, irrespective of the agreements, the State is bound to pay the price of it. ;