JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant claiming a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (one lakh and twenty thousand) together with costs and interest pendente lite and future. 2. The aforementioned amount was claimed with regard to the goods supplied by the plaintiff from time to time as per supply orders by the defendant through its representative of the respective areas and submitted the bills for payment as mentioned in details in the schedule A and B appended to the plaint. The defendant in its written statement Inter alia took the plea that the suit was not maintainable, that there was no written agreement or offer for the purchase of goods and that the rate quoted by the plaintiff was excessive and arbitrary. The learned court below after perusing the evidences on the record came to the conclusion that orders were being placed by the defendant company upon the plaintiff for supply of goods from time to time and the plaintiff has been supplying such goods on the basis of such order. According to the learned court below such practice was prevalent in B.C.C.L. and as such it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount in respect of the goods supplied. 2. The learned court below, however, by the impugned judgment granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 90,468.49/- (ninety thousand four hundred sixty eight and forty nine paise) only. The learned court below rejected the plaintiffs claim on three counts (a) With regard to the supply made on 2.11.1973 it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,872.48 Paise (two thousand eight hundred seventy two and forty eight paise) in respect of the bill no. 463 of the same date, Ext. 4/z-37, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. (b) It was further held that the claim of Rs. 15,589.92/- (fifteen thousand five hundred, eighty nine and ninety two paise) in respect of the value of the materials supplied to Gazlit colliery and Tetulmari Colliery no challan in respect of the first two items of schedule 'C' and first two items of schedule 'D' and first two items of schedule 'A' of the' plaint were proved. 15,589.92/- (fifteen thousand five hundred, eighty nine and ninety two paise) in respect of the value of the materials supplied to Gazlit colliery and Tetulmari Colliery no challan in respect of the first two items of schedule 'C' and first two items of schedule 'D' and first two items of schedule 'A' of the' plaint were proved. (c) The plaintiff's claim of interest to the extent of Rs.11,000/- and odd was also rejected on the ground that there was no written agreement between the parties to pay and amount of interest on the unpaid balance amount of the bills. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not press this appeal with regard to the finding of the learned court below relating to the bill dated 2.11.1973 as the same is barred by limitation, in view of the fact that the suit was instituted on 15.11.1976. So far as second item is concerned it appears that the judgment of the learned court below is erroneous. The entire defence of the defendant has been summarised in paragraph 9 of the written statement. From a perusal of the aforementioned statement made in the written statement. It will appear that there had not been any denial with regard to the supply of materials by the plaintiff. From the plaint it would appear that the plaintiff has given in details the supply made by it to the defendant company and also specified areas where such supplies were made. 4. Although, it is true that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the two challans in respect of the supplies as mentioned hereinbefore. In paragraph 9 (b) in my opinion, the defendant was deemed to bound to deny specifically made assertions by the plaintiff with regard to the supply made by it. In the connection reference may be made to order 8 Rule 5 and Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. In view of the fact that the defendant did not specifically deny the averments made in the plaint such averments will be deemed to be admitted. However, no document worth the name was also produced from the side of the defendant. On the other hand the plaintiff has proved the bills and other records wherefrom it appears that such supplies were made. However, no document worth the name was also produced from the side of the defendant. On the other hand the plaintiff has proved the bills and other records wherefrom it appears that such supplies were made. The learned court below on the basis of its own finding came to the conclusion that the supply used to be made by the plaintiff was regular and the bills used to be drawn up, issued and served upon the defendant in regular course of business. Apart from the aforementioned documentary evidence namely, Ext. 4 series as also Ext.5/z-2, in my opinion, the learned court below ought to have passed a decree also in respect of the aforementioned amount of Rs. 15,589.92/-. Coming to the third item the finding of the learned court below in paragraph 9 of the judgment is wholly erroneous and the learned court, below apparently lost sight of the provision of 61 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 or to avail that a supplier is entitled to interest in respect of the goods supplied. Section 61 of the Sales of Goods Act reads as follows: (1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of the seller or the buyer to recover interest or special damages in any case where by law Interest or special damages may be recoverable, or to recover the money paid where the consideration for the payment of it has failed. (2) In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the Court may award interest at such rate as it thinks fit on the amount of the price - (a) to the seller in a suit by him for the amount of the price from the date of the tender of the goods or from the date on which the price was payable: (b) to the buyer in a suit by him for the refund of the price in a case of a breach of the contract on the part of the seller from the date on which the payment was made." The plaintiff, was, therefore, entitled to interest in terms of the aforementioned provision on the basis of the learned court below’s own finding that there was no contract in writing to the contrary. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the court below is modified to the extent aforementioned. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the court below is modified to the extent aforementioned. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest pendente lite and future from the respondent at the rate of six percent per annum. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to get costs of this appeal from the respondent. Hearing fee of this appeal is assessed at Rs. 250/-.