Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Clauses 10 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge given in First Appeal No. 3 of 1980 (R). 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit, being Money Suit No. 220 of 1975, in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge 2nd, Dhanbad, for recovery of Rs. 1,73,347.84 paise as price of coal supplied by it to the defendant-respondent during the period 16-4-1972 to 30-4-1972 and 16-6-1972 to 30-6-1972 (hereinafter referred to as the period in question) with interest from the date of the bills till realisation and costs of the suit. The defendant filed the written statement denying the claim. The trial Court decreed the suit in part for Rs. 84,210.13 paise after adjusting the amount already paid by the defendant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till its realisation, Being aggrieved the defendant filed First Appeal No. 3 of 1980 (R) in this Court, which has been allowed by the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25.9.1989, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court have been set aside and the suit has been dismissed. Hence this appeal. 4. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement, the terms and conditions of which are contained in letter dated 29.12.1971 written by the defendant by which the plaintiffs offer for sale of coal was accepted. This letter is part of the record as Ext, 2/d. Clauses 1, 7 & 13 of the said letter/agreement being relevant are reproduced below: 1. For coal Price per Mode of despatch containing % ash tonne f.o.r. on fortnightly colliery average basis 23% - Rs. 29.00 - Rail/by road 23.01-23.50% - Rs. 27.75 - Road transport 23.51-24.00% - Rs. 26.50 - Charges at the 24.01-24.50% - Rs. 25.25 - rate of Rs. 8 24.51-25.00% - Rs. 24.00% - 00 per M.T. 7. Rejection : Coal above 25% will be rejected. If however the coal has been consumed before the analysis results are known, payment for such coals will be made as follows: Coal above 25% upto 27% Rs. 10 -per tonne f.o.r. colliery Coal above 27% --Rs. 1.00 per tonne f.o.r. colliery 3. SAMPLING & ANALYSIS: An independent Agency has been appointed for sampling and analysis of coal at the unloading point. 10 -per tonne f.o.r. colliery Coal above 27% --Rs. 1.00 per tonne f.o.r. colliery 3. SAMPLING & ANALYSIS: An independent Agency has been appointed for sampling and analysis of coal at the unloading point. The results of this agency will form the basis for payment. No dispute in respect of the method of sampling and/or analysis by the independent Agency will be entertained. The result furnished by the Independent Agency would be binding on both the parties. 4. According to the above conditions the rate/price to which the plaintiff is entitled for coal supplied by it to the defendant depends on the ash contents of the coal to be determined by an independent agency appointed for sampling and analysis of coal at the unloading point. In terms of Clauses 13, the Superintendence (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the S.P.L.) was engaged for sampling and analysis. 5. The controversy in the instant case is short one, namely whether sampling and analysis of coal supplied by the plaintiff for the period in question was done by the S.P.L. or by the Chemical Section of the defendant. If it is found that sampling and analysis was done by the S.P.L., the price has to be paid on the basis of the ash contents of the coal as mentioned in its report. But if it was done by any person, other than the S.P.L. the position may be different. 6. The trial Court held that sampling and analysis was not done by the S.P.L. during the period in question, but on the other hand it was done by the Chemical Section of the defendant. The suit was accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned single Judge in the First Appeal set aside the judgment of the trial Court holding that sampling and analysis of coal was done by the S.P.L. 7. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the S.P.L. was doing the work of sampling and analysis of coal in terms of Clauses 13 of the agreement, but during the period of strike by its employees from February, 1972 it could not carry out the said work. There is dispute between the parties about the period/time upto which the strike of the employees of the S.P.L. continued. There is dispute between the parties about the period/time upto which the strike of the employees of the S.P.L. continued. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the strike continued upto June, 1972, but according to the defendant it came to an end on 11.4.1972, whereafter the S.P.L. started its work of sampling and analysis again. 8. In paragraph 12 of the plaint the plaintiff has admitted that from February, 1972, the S.P.L. was not discharging the work of sampling and analysis, but some time in April, 1972 it started doing the said work. In paragraph 17 of the written statement which contains reply of paragraph 12 of the plaint. The defendant has stated that there was strike in the S.P.L. from 8.2.1972 to 11.4.1972, during which period no work of sampling and analysis was done by it, but after the strike was over the said work has been done by it. In its letter dated 15.5.1972 (Ext. B/2) the plaintiff has also admitted the fact the sampling and analysis work was being done by the S.P.L. after the strike was over in April, 1972. However, the plaintiffs grievance, as is contained in the said letter, was that the S.P.L. has done the said work by different set of persons. The learned single Judge rightly observed that if the said work has been done by the S.P.L. it is immaterial whether it was done by the old or the new set up, specially when such a case has not been pleaded by the plaintiff for the relief claimed in the plaint. On the basis of the pleading of the parties and and evidence produced by them, the learned single Judge has recorded the finding that the strike in the S.P.L. was from 8.2.1972 to 11.4.1972, where after the S.P.L. resumed the work of sampling and analysis. It was, accordingly, held that during the period in question the work of sampling and analysis was done by the S.P.L. and the plaintiff is entitled to the rate/price on the basis of the ash contents as determined/reported by the S.P.L. 9. It was, accordingly, held that during the period in question the work of sampling and analysis was done by the S.P.L. and the plaintiff is entitled to the rate/price on the basis of the ash contents as determined/reported by the S.P.L. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, placed much reliance on the statements of some of the defendants witnesses, i.e., D.W. 4 and D.W. 5 according to which the strike of the employees of the S.P.L. continued upto June, 1972 due to which the work of sampling and analysis was done by the defendant in its Chemical Section during that period. The trial Court has also placed reliance on the statements of those witnesses. The learned single Judge on the other hand has placed reliance on the admission of the parties in their pleadings and the letters written by the plaintiff to the defendant. The learned single Judge has explained the testimony of some of those witnesses and has also given good reasons for not placing reliance on them. He has also explained the statement of D.W. 9 and has placed reliance on it in support of his conclusion. That apart, in view of the admission of the parties in their pleadings and the letters, it is not appropriate to give any credence to the statements made by some of the witnesses of the defendant. 10. We agree with the views expressed, findings and reasons recorded in support thereof by the leaned single Judge. No ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Judge has been made out. 11. The analysis reports submitted by the S.P.L. for the period in question are part of the record. In these reports the ash contents in the coal have been shown above 25%. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to the price for the coal supplied by it on the basis of the ash contents ad determined in those reports. It has been stated on behalf of the defendant that the bills were prepared at the rate mentioned in the agreement as per the ash contents determined by the S.P.L. and the payments have, accordingly, been made to the plaintiff. It appears that about Rs. 65,000.00 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff after filing of the suit. It has been stated on behalf of the defendant that the bills were prepared at the rate mentioned in the agreement as per the ash contents determined by the S.P.L. and the payments have, accordingly, been made to the plaintiff. It appears that about Rs. 65,000.00 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff after filing of the suit. The learned single Judge, accordingly, while allowing the appeal has directed that the defendant shall pay that amount to the plaintiff-appellant, which was paid as Court-fee on Rs. 65,000.00 . The said direction of the learned single Judge is also fully justified and no exception can be taken to it. 12. This appeal lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.