RSA 183/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant and M r. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the jud gment and decree dated 6th August, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Jo rhat in Money Appeal No.2/2008 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/ respondents for Rs.1,70,000/-. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted Money Suit No.48/1 989 praying for a decree of Rs.1,70,000/-, being the value of the RS Joist deliv ered short by the appellant herein, who was the Transport Contractor, contending inter alia that though the appellant was issued with the work order for carryin g RS Joist size 175m x 85m - 200 Mts. and RS Joist size x 75m - 200 Mts., he mad e the short delivery and on a fixed date though the actual measurement in presen ce of the appellant was taken, he neither returned the balance quantity of RS Jo ist measuring 17.14 metric tons of 150m X 75m and 4.612 metric tons of 175m X 85 m value of which is Rs.1,70,000/-. The defendant contested the suit by filing written state ment contending inter alia that he carried out the work order to the satisfactio n of all concerned. The defendant, however, in the written statement admitted t hat there was a measurement of RS Joist at Jorhat in his presence and he refused to put his signature in such measurement as the same was done after 2 (two) mon ths of the delivery. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the follow ing issues were framed:- Issue No.1: Whether there is a cause of action for the suit? Issue No.2: Whether the defendant caused loss of Rs.170,000/- (Rupees One lakh s eventy thousand) by short delivery RS joist? Issue No.3: Whether there was a condition that the defendant has to value of sho rtage, if detected in future after delivery is accepted? Issue No.4: Whether the defendant is liable to accept the modified terms and con ditions set forth by the order of the plaintiff dated 05-02-1988? Issue No.5: Whether the defendant delivered short quantity of RS Joist at Jorhat after carrying due quantity from Tinsukia and Makum? Issue No.6: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of Dibrugar h R.E.C. Division? Issue No.7: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees O ne lakh & seventy thousand) from the defendant)? While the plaintiffs examined 4 (four) witnesses in supp ort of the claim and proved 5 (five) documents being Exhibits-1 to 5, the defend ant did not examine any witness. The defendant, however, cross-examined the wit nesses adduced by the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, by the judgment dat ed 24th April, 2008 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred the aforesaid title appeal, which has been decreed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appe llant/defendant that since the plaintiff has failed to adduce any documentary ev idence relating to the measurement taken, the learned Lower Appellate Court ough t not to have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the learne d counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the measurement was done i n presence of the defendant, which he has admitted in the written statement and he has also not disputed weight of the RS Joist, as recorded in his presence. A ccording to the learned counsel, that apart, the plaintiff could prove the Exhib it-3 document in which, it has clearly been reflected the weight of the RS Joist delivered short. It appears from the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below that apart from the oral evidence adduced by the plai ntiff in support of the claim of short delivery of RS Joist, the plaintiffs also proved the Exhibit-3 document, which reflects the weight of such RS Joist deliv ered short. The pleading of the plaintiffs relating to the value of the quantit y of such short delivery amounting to Rs.1,70,000/- has also not been disputed b y the defendant. The learned Court below has recorded the finding of fact relat ing to the short delivery. Moreover, the appellant/defendant has admitted that such measurement was taken in his presence. The articles found to be delivered short and its weight as well its value has not been disputed by the appellant. That being the position, I am of the view that no substa ntial question of law is involved in the present appeal and hence the appeal is not admitted and therefore, dismissed. No cost.