FIRST APPEAL No.567 OF 1979 Against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.4.1979 Passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge- XI, Patna,in Money Suit No.162 of 1977. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. --- DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS. VERSUS M/S MODERN TOOLS &PIPE FITTINGS COMPANY AND OTHERS --- PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS. For the appellants :Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, A.C. to G.P.16. For the respondents:Mr.Jatindra Pratap Singh, Advocate. Dated 11th August,2010 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO JUDGMENT Mungeshwar Sahoo,J. The defendants have filed this first appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.4.1979 passed by Sri Md.Ziyauddin, learned Subordinate Judge-XI, Patna, in Money Suit No.162 of 1977 decreeing the plaintiff- respondents’ money suit in part. 2. The plaintiff-respondents filed the aforesaid suit claiming Rs.13051.61 paise including interest on the principal amount of Rs.7,788.55 paise. 3. The plaintiffs prayed for the aforesaid relief on the ground that Sri D.P.Yadav, Principal, I.T.I., Hazaribagh, placed six orders for supply of Tools, Welding Goods and other articles. The plaintiffs after accepting the said offer supplied the said articles and raised bill of Rs.7788.55 paise but the defendants did not pay. After serving 2 notice under section 80 C.P.C. this suit was filed. 4. On being noticed the appellants who are defendants in the court below appeared and filed written statement contending that the rate of amount claimed by the plaintiffs was found excessive than the prevailing market price, so, the plaintiff has been paid only Rs.4804.41 paise which was the admissible amount in full and final settlement. The rate on which the plaintiffs demanded was not accepted by the committee. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the learned court below framed four issues out of which Issue No.4 was in relation to the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the amount claimed by him. 6. After trial the learned court below decreed the plaintiff’s suit finding that the plaintiff has raised the bill, as per the six orders placed by the then the Principal, I.T.I., Hazaribagh. The learned court below refused to grant 18% interest as claimed by the plaintiff and granted the interest at the rate admissible in the government department. 7. Before going into the merit of the case it may be mentioned here that all the relevant documents, i.e., the lower court records have been destroyed by the court below after observing the formalities. The parties were directed to produce copies of the documents, if available with them. Both the parties submitted that they have no paper with 3 them. Now, therefore, they jointly prayed that the appeal is very old as such it may be decided on merit on the basis of the Judgment. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties submitted that they are not challenging the admissibility, genuineness of the documents referred to in the Judgment and, therefore, this first appeal was heard without the relevant documents noticed in the impugned judgment. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the then Principal, Sri D.P.Yadav, without obtaining approval of the price from the Purchasing Committee placed the orders with the plaintiffs. When the bills were raised the Purchasing Committee objected to it on the ground that the amount raised in the bills are excessive and, therefore, the total amount claimed by the plaintiff was refused. However, the amount of the articles which was prevalent at the relevant time in the market was calculated and paid to the plaintiff in full and final satisfaction against the bill raised. The learned counsel further submitted that without considering this fact that the bill raised by the plaintiff was excessive to the prevalent price of the articles the learned court below has decreed the plaintiff’s suit wrongly. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after decree execution case was filed by the plaintiff and when no stay was granted the appellants deposited the decrettal amount and the plaintiff respondents 4 have already withdrawn the said amount. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and decree. 10. In view of the above contentions of the parties the only point raised for consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below is sustainable in the eye of law and whether the plaintiff ‘s suit has been rightly decreed. F I N D I N G S. 11. In this case the placing of the orders for supply of the above stated articles by the then Principal, I.T.I., Hazaribag, namely, Sri D.P.Yadav, is admitted. After supply of the said articles the said Principal was transferred to Birpur. The only dispute is that the plaintiff’s bill for the articles supplied are excessive than the price prevalent at the relevant time in the market. So far this question is concerned the parties have adduced evidences. As stated above neither the oral evidences nor the documentary evidences are available. However, the documents which had been relied upon by the learned court below have not been disputed by the parties before this Court. It is admitted that the six orders were placed by Sri D.P.Yadav. The said orders have been exhibited as Ext.5 series. It is also not denied that in the said Ext.5 the price of all the articles have been mentioned by the then Principal himself. It also appears that the plaintiff raised bill in 5 Ext.7 according to the price mentioned in Ext.5 series, i.e., the orders placed by the Principal. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Principal had not obtained approval of the price from the Purchasing Committee. So far this submission is concerned it has got no bearing with the plaintiff. It was the duty of the Principal and for his failure to obtain approval will not debar the plaintiff from raising the bill . Whether the Principal obtained approval from the Purchasing Committee or not is internal matter between the department inter se. The learned court below has specifically mentioned in the Judgment that the orders placed by the defendants contains price of the articles supplied by the plaintiffs and the bills for those articles raised by the plaintiff are equal to that of Ext.5 series. 13. In view of my above discussions I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and on this ground the impugned Judgment and decree cannot be interfered with. Except this no other point has been raised. 14. After considering the case as stated above I find that the learned court below has rightly found that the plaintiff’s bill was according to the rate of the articles mentioned in the orders placed by the Principal , Sri D.P. 6 Yadav himself. Therefore, the finding of the learned court below on this point is hereby confirmed. 15. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, this first appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.) The Patna High Court The 11th August,2010. AnilKr.Sinha. Secretary/ N.A.F.R.