JUDGMENT - B.G. DEO, J.:---This common judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid first appeals filed by the appellant-defendant State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Chandrapur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur, against a common Contractor M/s. P.P. Patel Company, a registered partnership firm, in whose favour money decrees for various amounts were passed for recovery of the price of empty cement gunny bags which, according to the respondent-plaintiff, were its property and which, under the contract, were deposited with the appellant-defendant State through the bags collecting agent and which gunny bags or price thereof have not been returned to the plaintiff, despite notice, by the State. 2. The appeals are against the following judgments and decrees passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff : "Order passed in Spl. C.S. No. 2 of 1974 : I hereby order that the Defendant do pay Rs. 42,652. 20 paise with costs of suit to the plaintiff. The principal amount of Rs. 32, 580 to carry interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of suit till realization. A decree be drawn up accordingly" "Order passed in Spl. C. S. No. 5 of 1974 : I hereby order that the defendant do pay Rs. 41,440 with costs of suit to the plaintiff. The principle amount of Rs. 30, 900 to carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realization. A decree be drawn up accordingly". "Order passed in Spl. C. S. No. 4 of 1974 : I hereby order that the Defendant do pay Rs. 30, 543. 50 ps. with proportionate cost of suit to the plaintiff. The principle amount of Rs. 22, 706. 25 ps. to carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realization. A decree be drawn up accordingly". "Order passed in Spl. C. S. No. 6 of 1974 : I hereby order that the Defendant do pay Rs. 15, 117. 50 with costs of suit to the plaintiff. The principle amount of Rs. 10, 612. 50 to carry interest of 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realization. A decree be drawn up accordingly". "Order passed in Spl. C. S. No. 7 of 1974 : I hereby order that the Defendant do pay Rs. 30, 754. 75 ps. with costs of suit to the plaintiff. The principal amount of Rs. 22, 917. 75 ps. A decree be drawn up accordingly". "Order passed in Spl. C. S. No. 7 of 1974 : I hereby order that the Defendant do pay Rs. 30, 754. 75 ps. with costs of suit to the plaintiff. The principal amount of Rs. 22, 917. 75 ps. to carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realization. A decree be drawn up accordingly". "Order passed in Spl. C. S. No. 3 of 1974 : I hereby order that the Defendant do pay Rs. 47, 069. 75 paise with costs of suit to the plaintiff. The principal amount of Rs. 34, 863. 75 to carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realization. A decree be drawn up accordingly". 3. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be briefly stated thus. The plaintiff-respondent Contractor, a registered partnership firm, had submitted six tender agreements for the construction of Type III quarters in the Defence Project at Bhandak in the district Chandrapur. They were accepted by the State. The State has undertaken to supply cement required for execution of the said works. Clause V of the tender form stipulated thus: 'Supply of materials by the Government-Cement : Cement should be procured only from the department and will be supplied to the Contractor in standard jute bags. 20 bags as one M.T. received from the cement supplier at the rates specified in Schedule "A" enclosed with tender". In the contract Schedule "A", item No. 1 was "Cement". The approximate quantity which may increase or decrease was 2037 M.T. The rates at which the cement would be charged to the Contractors was Rs. 182/-. The notes on Schedule 'A' stipulated thus: "All empty cement bags should be returned by the Contractors in good condition. In the event of non-return of bags, 00. 75 ps. will be recovered from the contractor for each non-returned bag at his own costs in bundles of 25 each in the same store from which cement in whole bags is issued or any other stores of the defence projects division as directed". Accordingly, cement was supplied for the said works to the plaintiff-respondent which, as per Rule 8 of the special conditions of contract, were supplied in standard jute bags (20 bags as one metric tonne). Accordingly, cement was supplied for the said works to the plaintiff-respondent which, as per Rule 8 of the special conditions of contract, were supplied in standard jute bags (20 bags as one metric tonne). According to the plaintiff- respondent, the reason for return of the empty gunny bags was that there was scarcity of jute gunny bags and it was also to be ascertained as to how much cement was consumed at the works. 4. The price of cement was to be adjusted against plaintiff's bills. The controversy between the parties is as to whether the price of cement included the price of the container i.e. the jute gunny bags and whether the property in the jute gunny bags passed to the plaintiff. 5. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur consolidated all the six special civil suits and the evidence in common in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1974 and came to the conclusion that the property in the jute bags had passed to the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff was entitled for the price of the aforesaid jute gunny bags and passed the aforesaid decrees. It is against these decrees that the present appeals have been directed. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the State vehemently argued that it is the agreement of returning the empty gunny bags to the State which would show that only the price of the commodity cement was to be adjusted in the bills and that it did not include the price of the cement bags. Such an interpretation of the contract is not at all warranted in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In all the cases, as per the evidence of P.W. 2 Babulal Bajoriya (Exhibit 38), the empty cement bags were returned, as alleged by the plaintiff, to the department, while the department had not issued any acknowledgement for receipt of the said cement bags. No recovery was made on account of empty cement bags from the plaintiff at the time of finalisation of the bills. 8. The evidence of P.W.1 Chintamani Nawathe (Exhibit 30), the Executive Engineer in charge of the Defence Project at Bhandak, is material in this project. No recovery was made on account of empty cement bags from the plaintiff at the time of finalisation of the bills. 8. The evidence of P.W.1 Chintamani Nawathe (Exhibit 30), the Executive Engineer in charge of the Defence Project at Bhandak, is material in this project. His evidence is to the effect that in case of recovery, a statement of recovery is attached to the final bill and the department has maintained an account of empty cement bags returned by the Contractor. Since no recovery statement is attached to the final bills in this respect the contention of the State that in all cases these plaintiff has not proved return of the specific number of bags, is also not warranted. 9. The question of limitation can also be disposed of as the right to sue clearly accrued to the plaintiff-respondent when the plaintiff's claim, which was under consideration of the Chief Executive Engineer, was finally rejected on 20th February, 1971 and not when the final bills were paid on 24th April, 1969. If the property in the gunny bags was of the State, the matter would have ended on 24th April, 1969 when the final bills were paid. If not, the State was clearly liable to compensate the plaintiff for the empty cement bags which, according to the plaintiff, were its property and whose claim in respect of the same was finally rejected by the State on 20th February, 1971 giving it a cause of action which was within limitation in these cases. 10. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, relying upon the decision reported in A.I.R. 1960 Supreme Court 335 (Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and others)1, has considered this aspect and has rightly come to the conclusion that this was not a case of the price for the goods sold or work done so that the limitation may run from the date of the final bill, but here was a case when the cause of action would arise on the date of refusal to pay the claim. No exception can be made to the finding that the suits were within limitation. 11. The sole question in this case is whether the price of cement was inclusive of the price of the container i.e. jute gunny bags. No exception can be made to the finding that the suits were within limitation. 11. The sole question in this case is whether the price of cement was inclusive of the price of the container i.e. jute gunny bags. In this respect, it was contended by the State that in the event of non-return of cement bags, the plaintiff was obliged to pay 0. 75 naye paise per cement bag which clearly indicated that the price of the cement bags was not inclusive of the price of cement. This cannot be accepted for more reasons than the one. As per Rule 8 of the special conditions of the contract, cement was to be supplied in standard jute bags (20 bags as one metric tonne). Such a clause for return of the empty bags was inserted, in all probabilities on account of scarcity of jute gunny bags at that time. That did not entitle the State to retain the property of jute gunny bags while parting with desired quantity of cement. The defendant State had undertaken to supply cement required for execution of the work at the rate incorporated in Schedule 'A' to the agreement. The cement was supplied in standard jute gunny bags. The price of cement supplied to the plaintiff was adjusted against the plaintiff's bills. These facts shows that the empty cement bags were the plaintiff's property as the price of the cement definitely was inclusive of the price of the container. 12. The evidence of P.W. 1 Chintamani Nawathe (Exhibit 30), who was at the material time working as Executive Engineer in the Defence Project Division I at Bhandak, is material in this respect. His evidence that the issue rate of cement was inclusive of the price of the gunny bags clinches the issue. There is no reason why this witness should given evidence against the State. The contention that only the price of the commodity cement was to be adjusted in the bills of the plaintiff is not warranted in view of the evidence of this witness P.W. 1 Chintamani Nawathe (Exhibit 30). 13. The plaintiff had also placed reliance on the memorandum dated 17th March, 1972 (Exhibit 46) issued by Irrigation and Power Department of Maharashtra State and Standard order issued by the said department dated 11th May, 1966 (Exhibit 47). 13. The plaintiff had also placed reliance on the memorandum dated 17th March, 1972 (Exhibit 46) issued by Irrigation and Power Department of Maharashtra State and Standard order issued by the said department dated 11th May, 1966 (Exhibit 47). These documents were produced by P.W. 3 Baburao Nikhade (Exhibit 42) who was working in the P.W.D. at Chandrapur. The State, by these documents, had also accepted that the recovery rate of cement was inclusive of costs of jute or paper bags. The empty cement bags, therefore, were the property of the contractor. 14. It is only 90 per cent of the empty cement bags issued to the plaintiff-respondent that it was obliged to return. Had the property of 100 per cent of empty cement bags been retained by the State, there was no reason in directing only the return of 90 per cent of empty cement bags. This alone shows that the return was for the purpose of securing cement bags which were scarce. The fact, as has been rightly concluded by the learned Civil Judge showed that the property of cement bags in which the cement was supplied to the plaintiff at the prescribed rates was the property of the plaintiff. A consideration of the evidence, notes to Schedule A, Clause 8 of the special conditions of the contract and Clause 12 of the condition of the tender makes the conclusion irresistible that the property of cement bags then supplied was the property of the plaintiff and the State was, therefore not authorised in retaining the cement bags and not refunding the plaintiff with the price thereof. 15 The question whether in such a contract the jute gunny bags in which cement was supplied by the State to the contractor become the property of the contractor, has already been decided by this Court. 16. In First Appeal No. 79 of 1975 with First Appeal No. 80 of 1975 (The Chief Secretary to the Govt, of Maharashtra, Sachivalaya, Bombay, 32 others v. Messrs. 16. In First Appeal No. 79 of 1975 with First Appeal No. 80 of 1975 (The Chief Secretary to the Govt, of Maharashtra, Sachivalaya, Bombay, 32 others v. Messrs. Attarsingh Sethi Sons, Nagpur)2, Joshi, J. (as he then was) of this Court, while decreeing the claims of the plaintiff in those cases in respect of the empty jute bags, observed as under: "Indeed this is made clear beyond any possible dispute in the standing order issued by the Irrigation and Power Department, Sachivalaya, Bombay dated 11th May, 1966 where it is clearly stated that the recovery rate of cement was inclusive of jute or paper bags. It is also further clarified by the Circular of the Government of Maharashtra, Irrigation and Power Department dated 17-3-1972 that the empty cement bags are the property of the Contractors as full costs of cement including its container bags is recovered from them. The threatened recovery of 0.75 paise per bag from the Contractor of the empty cement bags were not returned as specified it appears, was to ensure return of all empty bags, possibly because they were in short supply, and not because of the empty bags were the property of the appellants. This is indeed clarified in the Circular dated 24-2-1961 of the Government of India, Building and Communications Department which says :--- "As empty cement bags of A.C.C. are urgently required for repacking cement of the factories of the A.C.C. Limited, and in order to maintain quick despatches of cement without interruption and dislocation to works on Government Indentors i.e Executive Engineers are directed to return the cement bags (A Class) to the various collecting agents of A.C.C.". "If the empty cement bags were the property of the respondent because the price of the cement supplied had already been adjusted from the respondents bills for work done, and if the empty cement bags were still returned to the appellants, it is clear, the respondents was entitled to recover price thereof. A similar view has been taken by a Single Judge of this Court (D. B. Deshpande, J.) in First Appeal No.104 of 1974 (The Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and two others v. Messrs Attarsingh Sethi Sons,) decided on 22-7-1981. I see no reason to take a different view. It would therefore, follow that the trial Court was right in decreeing this part of the plaintiff-respondent's claim in both the suits". I see no reason to take a different view. It would therefore, follow that the trial Court was right in decreeing this part of the plaintiff-respondent's claim in both the suits". (Emphasis supplied) It is clear from the aforesaid judgment of this Court that in such contracts not only the Government has now accepted the view that empty cement bags were the property of the Contractor, but that this Court has also decreed such claims for the price of the empty cement bags returned by the Contractor to the State. The learned Additional Govt. Pleader for the State was at a loss to explain as to why a different view should be taken by this Court on similar facts. I cannot conceds to the contention of the learned Govt. Pleader for the State that the note has not been appreciated properly and that the interpretation is not correct. The Circular issued by the Department of the State, according to Shri Badar, was only for the guidelines, while it was the contract which should govern the parties. Having regard to the contract also and various other aspects already discussed, it must be said that the contract was that the cement bags were to be supplied in jute gunny bags to the Contractor that the price was to be adjusted in the bills and the contractor was entitled to get back the price of the jute bags returned to the department, as the supply of jute bags was scarce. 17. In short, the facts and circumstances of the case read with the relevant notes and circulars issued by the Government, the evidence of the Executive Engineer P.W.1 Chintamani Nawathe and above all the previous decisions of this Court in two other cases already referred to, all go to show that the property of the empty jute bags was of the Contractors-plaintiff and that, therefore, the aforesaid decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur in all the six special Civil suits were correct and proper, and do not therefore call for any interference. 18. In result all the six appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. -----