JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff's appeal from the judgement and decree of the Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur, dated 31st March, 1972, dismissing the suit. The plaintiff is a labour contract co-operative society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies' Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the society). The society took contract for loading and unloading and fuel handling for zone no. 3 comprising Samdari, Balotra, Barmer, Raniwara, Jasai, Gadra road and other stations, for the period 15.11.64 to 14.11.65. The Society's case is that the work which it carried out in the months of September, October and November, 1965 amounting to Rs. 13,747.00 was not paid to it. To this amount a sum of Rs. 5444/- was added on the ground that the security deposit to this extent was lying with the defendants. After due notice the plaintiff brought the suit for the recovery of Rs. 19,191/- (Rs. 13,747/- plus Rs. 5,444/-). 2. The defendant admitted the plaintiff's claim to the extent of Rs. 7,341.94. The defendants however, claimed adjustment to the tune of Rs. 7,391.80 due to them in respect of the contract taken by the society for zone No.2. It was alleged that the society had taken contract of ash pit cleaning and order picking for zone No.2, that the society did not work in accordance with the terms of that contract and that amount of Rs. 7,391.80 was due from the society in connection with the contract. It was also alleged that according to the terms of the agreement for zone no.2, the defendants were entitled to adjust the amount due to them from the other sums due to the society. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the defence of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the society-appellant has raised three points before me:- 1. That the defendants were not entitled to adjust the amount due from the society, specially when the two contracts were different. 2. That the defendants wrongly charged the society for the demurrage and penalty even in respect of that work which was got done by the defendants from their departmental labour. 3. That the defendants were not justified in charging penalty for picking up less quantity of cinder at the rate of Rs. 80/- per tonne. None of these contentions is tenable. 4. 3. That the defendants were not justified in charging penalty for picking up less quantity of cinder at the rate of Rs. 80/- per tonne. None of these contentions is tenable. 4. As regards the first point, in clause 1 (e), 14 and 16 of the agreement Ex. A-263 entered into between the parties in connection with the contract or ash pit cleaning & cinder picking for zone No.2, it is clearly mentioned that the Railway Administration shall be entitled to recover its dues from the contractor by adjusting any other amount due to the contractor. In view of the agreement, the defendant-Railway Administration was justified in adjusting the amount out-standing against the contractor under agreement for zone No. 2 from the amount due to the contractor under contract for zone No.3. 5. On the second point, my attention was drawn to the statement of DW/1 - Shyamsunder Lal. The relevant portion of his statement runs as under:- Statement of recoveries zone 3 dk Ex.279 Msejst ds crk;s og Msejst ds 2552@& gS :0 968-05 departmental labour ds gSA It is urged on behalf of the society that the amount of Rs. 968.05 mentioned by the witness relates to demurrage which was charged by the Railway Administration for the work got done through the departmental labour. In my opinion, this is clearly a misreading of the statements. What the witness has stated is that he gave the details of the amount of Rs. 3,520/- by saying that Rs. 2,552.25 related to demurrage and Rs. 968.05 related to the payment to the departmental labour and this is how the amount of Rs. 3520/- has been mentioned as demurrage for the month of October, 1965. From the above statement, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 968.05 related to demurrage. As a matter of fact, according to the witness, this amount was paid by the Railway Administration to the departmental labour. 6. Turning to the last point, suffice to say that in the agreement, the society in clear terms agreed that in case of short-picking of cinder the Railway Administration will charge Rs. 80/- per tonne. That being the agreement, the Administration rightly charged for the short-picking of the cinder at the rate of Rs. 80/- per tonne. 7. There is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. *******