HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiff -appellant is directed against the judgment dated 28.7.1989 and decree dated 7.8.1989 passed in Money Suit No. 7 of 1972/16 of 1988 whereby and whereunder the learned Sub -ordinate Judge 3rd, Jamshedpur has been pleased to dismiss the suit.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the defendants/respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 at all materials times were partners of M/s. Bhatia and Sons Pvt. Ltd., the defendant/respondent No. 1. The firm was a dealer in oil and other petroleum products under the appellant. In the year 1983 there was an agreement between the appellant and the defendant/respondents No. 1 to 4 that the defendant/respondent No. 1 firm would deliver petroleum products i.e. petrol and diesel from its stock to the defendant/respondent No. 6 in its Department of Atomic Energy according to the requirements of various units of the defendant/ respondent No. 6. It was also agreed that on such supplies being made by the defendant/respondent No. 1 to the defendant/ respondent No. 6 and on representation being made by the defendant/ respondent No. 1 that such supplies had actually been made by them, the appellant undertook to replace the same to the defendant/respondent No. 1 and the partners thereof. For such supplies, the defendant/ respondent No. 1 would be entitled -to handling charges in respect to the said petroleum products at the agreed rates. The agreement as aforesaid could ascertained by implication from the course of dealings and conduct of the parties. It is also the case of the appellant that the defendant/respondents No. 1 to 4 represented to the appellant from time to time that they had delivered to the defendant/respondent No. 6 diverse quantity of petroleum products and the appellant, acting on such representation between January 1968 to July 1968, delivered by way of replacement to the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 4 petroleum products of aggregate value of Rs. 2,26,710.17. It was also contended that the particulars of the products actually replaced and/or delivered by appellant would appear from AC 4 Bills submitted by the appellant to the defendant/respondent No. 1, the particulars whereof are given in the Schedule A to the plaint.
(3.) THE further case of the appellant was that the aforementioned representation made to the appellant by the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 4 regarding delivery of petrol and diesel to the defendant/respondent No. 6 was false and fraudulent. The fraud contained in the fact that the defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 assured the appellant that they had delivered petroleum products to Atomic Mineral Division of the defendant/respondent No. 6 in their Unit No. JCL (60) knowing that such assurance was incorrect and false. In order to achieve fraud, the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 4 had fabricated and manipulated the documents and coupons to show that they had delivered petroleum products to Atomic Mineral Division of the defendant/respondent No. 6 with sole purpose of deceiving and defrauding the appellant. The coupons were falsely created by the defendants/respondents 1 to 4 as evidence of delivery petroleum products and by means of such coupons, the defendant/respondents No. 1 to 4 induced the appellant to believe that the same were genuine though the said defendant/respondents knew at all material time that the coupons were not genuine.;