JUDGMENT : 1. This application arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-applicant to recover the sum of Rs. 353, costs of printing certain papers on behalf of the defendant. The charges made were admittedly at double rates and they were in respect of four distinct orders for four sets of papers. The defendant denied his liability in respect of two sets of papers. He pleaded that the rates charged were exorbitant and that the work had been badly done. The Court framed three issues, the first being as to whether the defendant gave the two contested orders and whether he was liable therefor. With the other two we are not concerned in this revision. The Courted grant the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 59-2-0, holding that the defendant was not liable for the other two orders. The sum of Rs. 59-2-0, according to the judgment of the Court below, was calculated at Government rates. The only point which is, in my opinion, worthy of notice in this matter is the question of the defendant's liability in respect to the two contested orders. The lower Court, in its judgment says that these orders were given by one Jai Narain Bajpai, a witness for the plaintiff “who is in the service of the plaintiff and swears that he gave these two orders.” On this ground it held that the witness, Jai Narain Bajpai, was liable and not Rai Debi Prasad. The point taken on behalf of the applicant is that this witness distinctly stated that he gave those orders under the instructions of Rai Debi Prasad and that the mere fact that the order was conveyed to the plaintiff by Jai Narain Bajpai is not a sufficient ground for holding that the defendant was not liable. 2. The point taken on behalf of the applicant is that this witness distinctly stated that he gave those orders under the instructions of Rai Debi Prasad and that the mere fact that the order was conveyed to the plaintiff by Jai Narain Bajpai is not a sufficient ground for holding that the defendant was not liable. 2. An affidavit has been filed by Jai Narain Bajpai in which he says: “It is true that I gave the two orders, but they were given under the instructions of Rai Debi Prasad and I solemnly affirm and say that this is what I stated in my evidence before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Cawnpore.” This being so, it seems to me that the lower Court was in error in deciding that the defendant was not liable merely by reason of the fact that the order was conveyed to the plaintiff by the witness Jai Narain Bajpai and not by Rai Debi Prasad in person. It is a significant fact that Rai Debi Prasad took no objection on the score of liability for these two orders when the bill was presented to him, though, of course, he did object to the amount of the bill and the rate charged. The lower Court has calculated what would be due on these orders and it comes to Rs. 26-4-6. In my opinion on the evidence the plaintiff ought to have got a decree for this sum in addition to the sum of Rs. 59-2-0 which has already been decreed to her. I allow the application so far that I modify the decree of the Court below and give the plaintiff a decree for the additional sum of Rs. 26-4-6. The parties will pay and receive costs in both Courts in proportion to failure and success.