JUDGMENT 1. - This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and degree for Rs. 1,37,950/- with interest at the rate of 6% from 26.10.1993 till recovery and costs of the suit, passed by the Additional Distt. Judge No. 4, Jaipur City in a suit filed by the plaintiff-firm for recovery of balance price of Coal supplied to the defendant-appellant. 2. According to the plaint allegations, the plaintiff, which was claimed to be a registered partnership firm, is engaged in the business of supplying Coal on contract. In response to a notice inviting tender, the plaintiff had offered to supply coal which offer was accepted by the defendant and a contract was entered into between the parties. According to the contract, the rate of 'B' Grade Coal was Rs. 1,450/- per M.T.; that of 'C' Grade Coal was Rs. 1,400/- per M.T. and if the delivery of coal of quality inferior to 'C' Grade Coal was accepted and it was used by the defendant, the price had to be paid according to the calorific value of the coal. It was not necessary under the contract, for the defendant, to accept coal inferior in quality to 'C' grade. It was further averred in the plaint that coal having 5600 to 6200 calorific value would be treated as 'B' grade coal, coal having calorific value of 4940-5600 would be taken as 'C' grade and if the calorific value of the coal is below 4940, it would be deemed to be inferior than 'C' grade coal. If the coal inferior in quality than 'C' grade was accepted by the defendant, the payment was to be made according to the Schedule on the basis of calorific value. 3. According to the plaint allegations, it was admitted that the payment for the supplies of 'B' and 'C' grade coal were made by the defendant. The plaintiff supplied to the defendant and the defendant accepted the delivery of coal below the standard of 'C' grade worth Rs. 3,16,785.56, according to the plaintiff and raised bills for the same amount. However, according to the plaintiff, the defendant, on the basis of testing reports, which were prepared after the tests were got conducted by the defendant, was at least liable to pay Rs. 2,91,792.93. According to the plaintiff, defendant paid Rs. 2,10,431.16 by way of interim payment and Rs. 81,361.77 was due and recoverable inclusive of sales tax. However, according to the plaintiff, the defendant, on the basis of testing reports, which were prepared after the tests were got conducted by the defendant, was at least liable to pay Rs. 2,91,792.93. According to the plaintiff, defendant paid Rs. 2,10,431.16 by way of interim payment and Rs. 81,361.77 was due and recoverable inclusive of sales tax. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was. deposited by the plaintiff along with the tender was also not refunded. The plaintiff also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the basis of market price and as damages for unreasonably withholding the payment, which was calculated at Rs. 46,588.23. A degree for Rs. 1,37,950.00 was, therefore, prayed for. 4. In the written statement, the rates of 'B' and 'C' grade coal were admitted but it was denied that the rate was exclusive of expenses and taxes. According to the defendant, the rate was inclusive of expenses and taxes. According to the defendant, the amount payable for inferior quality of coal was Rs. 2,52,908/- only, out of which Rs. 2,35,079.68 were already paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The liability to pay interest was also denied as according to the defendant, there was neither any contract nor any market practice for payment of interest. It was also contended by the defendant that the suit was time barred. The defendant also claimed a set off of Rs. 26,359/- for purchase of the boiler tube which was damaged and had become useless because of using inferior quality coal supplied by the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court framed as many as eight issues excluding the issue on relief. 6. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the findings on Issue No. 1, holding the plaintiff to be a registered partnership firm, Issue No. 6 as to the jurisdiction of the Court and Issue No. 8 relating to impleading the Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation. The findings of the trial Court on Issues No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7 only were challenged. 7. Issue No. 2 is as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,37,950/- from the defendant towards the price of coal supplied. On this Issue, PW 1 Narendra Kumar, a partner of the plaintiff-firm deposed in support of the plaint and produced the supply orders. He also produced and exhibited as Ex. 7. Issue No. 2 is as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,37,950/- from the defendant towards the price of coal supplied. On this Issue, PW 1 Narendra Kumar, a partner of the plaintiff-firm deposed in support of the plaint and produced the supply orders. He also produced and exhibited as Ex. 6, the Schedule of goods supplied. He also exhibited the bills furnished to the defendant and deposed that an amount of Rs. 2,91,721.93 was due, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,10,451.16 was paid by the defendant and a sum of Rs. 81,361.77 was the balance price of the coal. He also deposed that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited with the tender as earnest money was also not refunded by the defendant and therefore, a sum of Rs. 91,361.77 was due from the defendant. The witness also exhibited letters of demands written by the plaintiff to the defendant. Nothing of consequence came out on this point in the cross-examination of this witness. 8. In contrast, DW 1 Vijay Kishore, Manager of the Process House of the Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation made a bald statement that the value of the coal supplied by the plaintiff was Rs. 2,52,908/- out of which Rs. 2,35,079.68 was paid. He has not given any details as to how these figures were arrived at. The trial Court has rightly relied on the statement of the plaintiff and decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff. 9. Issue No. 3 was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18% per annum. PW 1 Narendra Kumar has deposed that there was a market practice of charging interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the unpaid price of goods. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that the condition of payment of interest was not incorporated in writing in the contract. DW 1 Vijay Kishroe did not utter a word as to whether there was market practice for payment of interest or not. The only thing he deposed on the point was that there was no condition in the tender form for payment of interest. The Trial Court has rightly held that interest was payable at the rate of 18% per annum as per the market practice. The only thing he deposed on the point was that there was no condition in the tender form for payment of interest. The Trial Court has rightly held that interest was payable at the rate of 18% per annum as per the market practice. Thus, this issue has also been decided rightly on proper appreciation of evidence on record. 10. Issue No. 4 is as to limitation. In the plaint, the limitation was specifically claimed on the basis of last bill received. In para 9 of the plaint, it was stated that the cause of action arose on 7.11.1990 when last payment was made. In answer to this, in the written statement, it was averred by the defendant that the last supply was made on 1.10.1990 and therefore, the suit was beyond limitation. It was averred that the last payment made on 7.11.1990 was not relating to the disputed supplies and it was an amount paid towards earlier supply of coal. PW 1 Narendra Kumar has stated that the plaintiff had received last payment on 7.11.1990. He had also filed a letter (Ex. 22) from the Bank certifying this fact. Even if Ex. 22 is not held to be admissible, even the defendant had admitted in the written statement that the last payment was made on 7.11.1990 but it was made towards some earlier transaction. So, there was no dispute about the last payment being made to the plaintiff on 7.11.1990. The dispute was only whether it was towards the suit transaction or towards any earlier transaction. DW 1 Vijay Kishore has made only a bald statement that the payment made on 7.11.1990 was not relating to the disputed bills but was in respect of earlier bills. In his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he could not say as to against which bill the payment was made on 7.11.1990. The witness admitted that accounts are kept by the defendant but have not been produced before the Court and he could not give reason for this. In this state of evidence, the trial Court decided that the suit was within limitation and tightly so. 11. As regards Issues No. 5 & 6 relating to the absence of cause of action and absence of jurisdiction of the Court, no evidence was led by the defendant and it was not even pressed before the trial Court. In this state of evidence, the trial Court decided that the suit was within limitation and tightly so. 11. As regards Issues No. 5 & 6 relating to the absence of cause of action and absence of jurisdiction of the Court, no evidence was led by the defendant and it was not even pressed before the trial Court. Thus, the issues were rightly decided in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. 12. As regards Issue No. 7, which relates to set-off, the trial Court has rejected the claim for set-off for want of evidence. PW 1 Narendra Kumar has categorically stated that the defendant, at no point of time, informed the plaintiff that the boiler tube burst because of supply of inferior quality of coal. He also deposed that the boiler was said to have been damaged in 1993 when the coal was last supplied in October, 1990 by the plaintiff. There was no cross-examination on this point even when he denied in cross-examination that inferior quality coal was supplied and because of that the boiler was damaged. DW 1 Vijay Kishore himself has deposed in cross-examination that on 23.11.1992 they came to know of the defect in the boiler tube. Even after that, up to 8.4.1993, the same boiler tube was being used. He also admitted that they were purchasing coal from other agencies after 8.10.1990. In these circumstances, it is not proved that the boiler tube was damaged because of inferior quality coal supplied by the plaintiff. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any force in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The appellant shall bear their own costs and shall pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only) as consolidated cost to the plaintiff.Appeal dismissed. *******