JUDGMENT S.C. Mooklaerji, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th of July, 1973 passed by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Purnea in Money Suit No. 77/70 whereby and where under he decreed the suit of the plaintiff for realisation of a sum of Rs. 17,015.90 being the price of 309.38 quintals of wheet which was dispatched by the defendant-appellant in seven consignments from Khidirpur East to Katihar Flour Mills besides interest, etc. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the parties it is necessary to state their cases in substance. The respondent-plaintiff is a registered partnership firm having its principal place of business at Calcutta. It was also carrying on business of milling at Katihar in the name and style of M/s Katihar Flour Mills, Katihar. 3 The case of the plaintiff is that Government of India in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture used to allot monthly quota of wheat to the plaintiff for the purpose of milling and under the said scheme the consignments in question were dispatched to the Khidirpur to Katihar flour mills in the month of July, 1967. When the consignments arrived at the destination and delivery was taken from the railway wagons it was detected that the bags of wheat were not uniform and of standard weight, though they were In fact in sound condition without any sign of pilferage of damage. The delivery of the consignment was taken and the same were weighed in plaintiff's railway siding and it was found that the actual weight did not correspond to the weights shown in the respective railway receipts and actually there was shortage of 309.30 quintals. 4. An information was given to the concerned respondent about the shortage and they were requested to enquire into the matter in order to compensate the loss suffered by plaintiff-respondent. But no action was taken. On enquiry, it transpired that the wagons of the aforesaid consignment had not been weighed in the P.C. weight bridge before dispatch and the senders declared weights had been accepted for assessment of railway freights shown in the respective invoice and railway receipts. The plaintiff firm obtained mis-weighment certificates issued by the Commissioner of the port at Calcutta. When despite repeated reminders the claim was not settled the suit was filed after serving notice under Section 80 C.P.C 5. The plaintiff firm obtained mis-weighment certificates issued by the Commissioner of the port at Calcutta. When despite repeated reminders the claim was not settled the suit was filed after serving notice under Section 80 C.P.C 5. The appellants-representing the Union of India filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the consignments were booked in the sound bags of' uniform standard of weights. The allegation of the respondent on that score as also his (respondent) case that the actual weight did correspond to the weight shown in the respective R/Rs. has been challenged. It was also alleged that the so called shortage found on the basis of subsequent private weighment after having accepted delivery of consignment from the railway without any protest in absence of the defendant appellant or their representative was not at all binding on them and that, the consignments having been booked in sound bags of uniform standard weights and the respondent having accepted the consignments it was dot open to them to raise any objection that there had been shortage in the weighment. 6. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence led On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, decreed the suit in full and also allowed interest both pendentelite and future. 7. Most facts go admitted in this case. It is not in controversy that during transit no damages had occurred to any of the bags. It is also not in dispute that the consignments in question were taken by the plaintiff respondent. In this connection, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 may be referred to who, categorically stated that the bags received under the seven consignments at the Katihar flour mill siding were all full and in good condition without any mark in any of the bags. Further it has come from the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 4 and 5 that bags were not torn. Therefore, the evidence or these witnesses completely negative the possibility(s) of shortage having been occurred in course of the transit. Therefore, it is well established that all the bags received at the time of delivery were in perfect condition. The respondent has, however asserted that since the bags were not of uniform size, some shortage was suspected and when the same were weighed in the private rail way siding of the mill, the shortage indicated above was noticed, for which the claim in question was made. 8. The respondent has, however asserted that since the bags were not of uniform size, some shortage was suspected and when the same were weighed in the private rail way siding of the mill, the shortage indicated above was noticed, for which the claim in question was made. 8. On behalf of the appellant, the plaintiff's claim for the alleged shortage has been seriously disputed. It is said that if any weighment had been made privately by the respondent, the appellant should not be held responsible for the so called shortage. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Sharma pointed out that there is no evidence on record to indicate or suggest any action was taken by the respondent by way of information to the officials of appellant No. I, i.e. the Union of India, to depute any officer/representative to witness the weighment made by the plaintiff. Further, it is said that no opportunity was also given to the appellant by the court below to adduce evidence in support of this assertion which would be apparent from the petition filed by the Government Pleader in the Court below at the time of hearing. It has, however, been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Rajgarhia that in view of the past experience of the respondent, it would have been a futile attempt to request the official to be witness of the weighweut and if the respondent would have waited for their representative that would have caused additional financial burden on them by way of demurrage charges for detaining the wagons for the aforesaid purpose. In this connection, Mr. Rajgarhia has pointed out that a similar situation arose in the month of June, when in spite of repeated request neither any State Official nor any official of the appellant -came to witness the weighment of the shortage suspected. It has been submitted that in view of this experience, the plaintiff-respondent without informing any official, took delivery and weighed it in their private railway siding when shortage of 309 and odd quintals of weight was detected. Further, it is laid that railway was not in a position to issue any certificate since there was no pilferage etc. in any of the bags carried by them. Further, it is laid that railway was not in a position to issue any certificate since there was no pilferage etc. in any of the bags carried by them. Concluding, it said that the respondent plaintiff had to pay the price of the wheat shown in the railway receipts and therefore, if any shortage was there, it was the responsibility of the appellant to settle up that part of the claim, but in spite of letters and in spite of their assurance nothing was done, and thereafter only the respondent plaintiff was compelled to file a suit 9. Therefore, it is manifest from the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that since in the past no official was deputed for the purpose of weighment, no action in that direction was taken by the respondent at the time of taking delivery of the consignments in question. As indicated above, according to the respondent, the weighment was done in the private siding of the Katibar Flour Mill. It is significant to note that not even a protest note was given to the concerned authorities regarding the apprehended shortage. The respondent now can not take a plea that on account of its past experience, it was thought to be a futile Act, if any attempt in that regard had been taken. In other words, non-deputation of a representative by the appellant in the past could not have been a ground not to notice them when, according to respondent, some shortage was expected in view of different size of the bag. The respondent plaintiff, however, has asserted that the bags were not of uniform standard and as such, it was, apparent that there must have been some shortage. This aspect of the arguments been seriously contested by the defendant appellant it is stated that the foreign wheat received by Government of India by ship at Khidirpur dock used to be allotted to different organisations for the purpose of distribution according to Government Rules and that, the wheat on its arrival at dock premises used to be put in bags for the purpose of dispatching it to different destination and, therefore, it cannot be said that Government or its officials purposely put less wheat charged the full price of it. Further, it has been contended that in view of dispatch of a large number of bags to different parts of the country the standard weighment of the bags once taken, was the basis for the purpose of showing its weight so as to avoid any future dispute. In that situation when it was a regular state of affairs and the weighment was virtually an accepted one the railway authorities used to accept it on the basis of the certificate of weighment given by the deck officials for being dispatched to different places. In the instant case also, it appears that on being asked, the dock manager issued a certificate intimating therein that the senders weight for the purpose of assessment of the railway freight was accepted. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the railways had not also any doubt about the weight at the time of loading as it was a daily feature and accordingly it accepted the weight giver by the sender. 10. There is another aspect of the matter, which cannot be overlooked. The Consignments in question were dispatched from Khidirpur dock, which is near Calcutta. The respondent plaintiff is a registered partnership firm having its principal place of office at Calcutta and therefore, there was, no difficulty on the part of the plaintiff respondent to depute his agent/representative at Khidirpur dock at the time of loading of the bags for being satisfied about the weight given by the sender It is not in controversy that there were certain terms and condition of sale of wheat allotted by the Government of India In respect of weighment, it has been specifically mentioned that the purchasers, should make necessary arrangement of supervising the weighment at the dock/shortage depot and also loading of bags into the wagons at the station of dispatch and that no claim for shortage in weighment or store responsibility will be accepted by the Government at any stage and in whatever circumstances. Thus, the terms and conditions laid down by the Government were binding on the plaintiff and, as such, it was obligatory on the part of the purchaser of the wheat to abide by the Rules framed by the competent authorities. Thus, the terms and conditions laid down by the Government were binding on the plaintiff and, as such, it was obligatory on the part of the purchaser of the wheat to abide by the Rules framed by the competent authorities. If really the plaintiff had suffered loss in the past, as has been sought to be made out it was all the more necessary in the instant case to depute their representative at the time of loading, etc as per the terms and condition particularly when the principal office was at Calcutta If the plaintiff had failed to supervise the weighment at the time of loading in the wagons and the bags dispatched through wagons were also found in tack at the time of delivery, the respondent cannot be allowed to raise a plea to compensate the loss suffered due to shortage found by private measurement to the mill premises. At any rate, in face of the terms of sale and in view of the fact that the claim of the alleged shortage was on the basis of private weighment, the trial court was not justified in allowing the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. 11. For the reasons stated above, I find and hold that tile plaintiff has failed to prove its claim, as such, the suit must fail. The appeal is thus allowed on contest with cost Advocate fee assessed at Rs.500/- The judgment and decree of the trial court are hereby, set aside. Appeal allowed.