- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears from the side of the respondents.
(2.) THIS appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent is directed against the judgment dated 15th October, 1998 passed in First Appeal No. 58 of 1987(R) whereby the learned single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Money Suit No. 13/94. Plaintiff filed a Money Suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 46,449,68 paise together with interest being the charges for transportation of the Pusler (fire wood). The short facts of the case is that the appellant invited a tender called the transport contract for transportation of forest produce mentioned in the said notice from Panchkeri. Plantation Groups to Padma Depot. In pursuance of the said tender notice, the respondent submitted his tender which was duly accepted on 18.10.1982 by the forest department and letter was issued for execution of the agreement. Respondent after execution of the agreement, started transporting the forest produce. In the midst of the agreement. Respondent No. 2, Divisional Forest Officer, Daltonganj negotiated with the plaintiff - respondent for transportation of pusler also, which was not included in the aforesaid agreement. Plaintiffs case is that he agreed to transport pusler at the rate of Rs. 2.19 paise per piece. The Divisional Forest Officer without finalizing the rate, allowed the plaintiff to transport the said pusler. Accordingly, the plaintiff started transporting pusler and from time to time, submitted Bills. The plaintiff case was that the respondents unilaterally reduced the rate of transportation charge from Rs. 2.19 paise to Rs. 1.75 paise per piece and made some ad hoc payment against different bills. Out of the total bills, major portion of the amount was paid and the balance amount remained unpaid for which, the plaintiff instituted the suit after serving notice as required under Section 80, CPC.
(3.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing statement. The defendant although, not disputed the agreement for transportation of pusler, but their case is that the range Officer has no authority to entertain the bills of the plaintiff and to send it to the Divisional Forest Officer for approval. The defendants further case is that all the dues were paid to the plaintiff for transportation and other charges and nothing remained dues were the plaintiff. The learned trial Court framed following issues : - - 1. Is the suit maintainable as framed? 2. Has the plaintiff cause of notice for the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by law of Limitation? 4. Whether the payment of transport charges of pusler used to be made on the basis of bills at the rate of Rs. 1.75 paise per piece submitted by the plaintiff will be treated as the rate of transportation charge of pusler or not? 5. Whether the defendants are stopped from challenging the rate of transport charges of pusler at Rs. 1.75 paise per piece as they paid at this rate previously to the plaintiff? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled to get transport charges as claimed? 7. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs entitled -;