FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. BIRENDRA NATH DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against order No. 57 dated Jan. 13, 1977 of the Subordinate Judge, 1st. Court, Alipore, directing the defendant -petitioner, the Food Corporation of India, to produce certain documents for the inspection of the plaintiff -opposite party.

(2.) THE suit out of which this Rule arises has been instituted by the opposite party, praying for a decree for Rs. 96,880.34 with interest at 12% per annum. The case of the opposite party is that he was appointed by the petitioner as a transport contractor to carry foodstuffs by boat to different places within the district of 24 -Par -ganas and the neighbouring districts of West Bengal, from the railway sidings to food depots. According to the movement orders given by the authorities of the Food Corporation of India, goods were being carried by the opposite party from one place to another and bills were being handed over to the representatives concerned. They were accepted for payment after verification. It is alleged that after final adjustment of the running account as on July 12, 1971, the petitioner is liable to pay a balance sum of Rs. 96,880.34. As the petitioner had failed to make the payment, the opposite party filed the suit

(3.) THE defence of the petitioner Is inter alia that on Aug. 8, 1969, the District Manager, Calcutta (South) entrusted to the opposite party a consignment of rice for carrying the same to Baxirhat. The goods were being carried by the opposite party on five boats. On August 26, 1969 one of the boats was totally damaged and sank into the Tolly's Nullah, due to the negligence of the opposite party, in conseouence whereof Bihar Boiled Rice weighing 29192 Kgs, was damaged, As per Clause (11) of the agreement a penal rate was imposed for the purpose of recovering the damages and demand notices were duly served on the opposite party for Rs. 1,03,491.35, but the opposite party did not pay the amount as demanded, and to defeat that claim the opposite party has filed the suit without referring to the sinking of the boat and the damage caused to the petitioner. It is contended that the opposite party is not entitled to any amount whatsoever and the suit is a misconceived one.