Appeal from Appellate Decree no. 92 of 1996 ---- Against the judgment and decree dated 22.1.1996 passed by Sri Dharnidhar Jha,Second Additional District Judge,Sitamarhi, in Money Appeal No. 2 of 1988. ----- THE BELSAND SUGAR CO.LTD.,RIGA-------------(Appellant) Versus BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINHA & ORS------------(Respondents) --- For the appellant : Dr. S.P.Thakur For the respondents : Er. Harendra Kumar Mr. Sanjeev Kumar ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH --- Navaniti Pd. Singh,J: Perused the records. It appears that by inadvertance the substantial question of law was not recorded at the time when this Second Appeal was admitted on 19.1.2001. Parties agreed that they were heard at the time of admission and the Court had framed substantial question of law as proposed by the appellant but was not recorded. In that view of the matter I record the substantial question of law that arises in the appeal as follows: “ Whether in view of provision of Section 46 of the Bihar Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase ) Act, 1981 and Rule 34 famed thereunder one deposits of cane price with the Cane Officer in case of a dispute with regard to apportionment is admitted and proved, can the Sugar Mill still be liable to pay the said amount to the claimant appertaining to the said dispute independent of the money to deposit. 2 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and records I find that both the trial court and the appellate Court have categorically recorded findings being admission of all the parties that the money being the cane price, which was in dispute between the plaintiff and the respondent nos. 2 and 3, was deposited by the Sugar Mill with the Cane Officer as contemplated under the Act though after some delay. Thus , the liability was duly discharged by the Sugar Mill though upon a delay. This discharge of liability is admitted by all the parties. This, in my view, absolve the Sugar Mill from any further liability. It was open to the plaintiff and respondent nos. 2 and 3, who were contesting claimants to the said cane price, to approach the authority for payment thereof, as the money had been deposited with the Cane Officer, a fact admitted and not disputed. In my view, the plaintiff ought to have made the Cane Officer , a party to the Suit and sought a direction as against him. Thus, in the facts aforesaid, and in view of admission of deposit of money with the Cane Officer, the appellate Court erred in law in directing the Sugar Mill to pay the amount to the parties. Money having been deposited with the Cane Officer and being to the knowledge of the plaintiff , the plaintiff not having made the Cane Officer a party and not having sought relief against him, could not be permitted to 3 proceed against the Sugar Mill. As the Sugar Mill has deposited the money in dispute with the Cane Officer in terms of Section 46 of the said Act and Rules framed there under, this appeal is accordingly allowed and the lower appellate Court’s judgment is set aside and the judgment of the trial Court is restored with the answer aforesaid. (Navaniti Pd. Singh,J) Patna High Court, July 8,2007, Patna High Court. (N.A.F.R.) Singh