L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 9-3-1994 rendered in O. S. Nos. 1383 of 1984 and 1412 of 1984 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) CCCA. No. 164/94 is filed against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 1412 of 1984 whereas CCCA. No. 68 of 1995 is filed against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 1383 of 1984. The appellant as well as the respondents are common in both the appeals. ( 3 ) O. S. No. 1383 of 1984 was filed by the appellant claiming that the goods (tyres and tubes) were entrusted to the respondent for transporting the same from Silvasa Union Territory to Hyderabad; that on transit, the goods were checked by the Sales Tax Authorities, State of Andhra Pradesh, at Sangareddy check-post and detained some of the goods on the ground that sales tax was not paid and that on seeing the bills and satisfying themselves that there was no evasion of sales tax, the goods were released. It is their cases that though the goods reached Hyderabad, they were not delivered to them on the ground that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Lad Bazaar, instructed the respondents not to release the goods. The appellant obtained necessary orders from this for release of the same. Still the goods were not released. Reference was made to so many proceedings, but the main complaint was that on account of improper storing and lack of proper care, the goods belonging to the appellant were damaged. In addition to that, they sustained heavy loss on account of the illegal withholding of the goods, both in terms of blocking of stocks and loss of profits. In all, an amount of Rs. 18,55,000. 00 was valued under various heads. ( 4 ) THE respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. A plea was also taken that notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act was not issued and that the suit was not in time. ( 5 ) THE trial Court framed the following issues :"1. Whether the plaintiff-Company is entite to receive the sum of Rs. 18,55,000/- from the defendant towards (de) terioration of goods value due to degrading of the goods and loss of interest etc. ( 5 ) THE trial Court framed the following issues :"1. Whether the plaintiff-Company is entite to receive the sum of Rs. 18,55,000/- from the defendant towards (de) terioration of goods value due to degrading of the goods and loss of interest etc. , together with interest at 18% p. a. on Rs. 10,85,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of payment, as prayed for? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree directing the defendant to deliver the goods as mentioned in the Annexure of the plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff-company is not liable to pay to the defendant any demurrage charges of the suit consignment, as prayed for? 4. Whether the defendant is bound in law to comply with the directions of the Commercial Tax Authority with regard to the delivery of goods to the authorities concerned? 5. Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay the demurrage charges for not affecting the delivery of the goods within the time stipulated in the contract, as alleged in the written statement? 6. Whether the suit is barred by time? 7. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action? 8. To what relief?" ( 6 ) SO far as O. S. No. 1412/84 is concerned, it was filed by the respondent herein against the appellant claiming an amount of Rs. 10,29,493/- towards demurrage charges. The facts leading to filing of this suit are almost the same as the one in OS. No. 1383/84. The only difference is that the respondent states that it is unconcerned about the cause for non-delivery of the goods. It is the case of the respondent in this suit that as long as the goods are in its custody or not taken delivery by the appellant, demurrage charges are liable to be paid. The appellant had almost reiterated its contention in the plaint in O. S. No. 1383/84 in the form of defence in O. S. No. 1412/84 in its written statement. The following issues were framed by the trial Court : "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 10,29,493. 00 as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Section 10 of the CPC in view of the suit O. S. No. 1304/94 as alleged in the written statement? 3. The following issues were framed by the trial Court : "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 10,29,493. 00 as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Section 10 of the CPC in view of the suit O. S. No. 1304/94 as alleged in the written statement? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at 18% p. a. ? 4. To what relief? ( 7 ) BOTH the suits were tried together. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the appellant and Ex. A1 and A2 were marked. D. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of respondent and Ex. B1 and B2 were marked. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit in O. S. No. 1383/84 filed by the appellant. So far as O. S. No. 1412/84 is concerned, the trial Court found that the respondent is entitled for demurrage of Rs. 5,79,000/ -. It gave credit to the amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- deposited by the appellant in the Court for the release of the goods. Accordingly, the trial Court passed the decree against the appellant for an amount of Rs. 3,89,000/- with interest at 12% p. a. These two appeals came to be filed against the said judgment and decrees. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant Sri Girish Kumar, appearing for Sri P. Srinivas Reddy and Sri T. Viswanadha Sastry, the learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals, argued extensively in support of the claims of their respective parties. ( 9 ) THE basic facts that gave rise to the filing of the suits are not in dispute. The factum of entrustment of the goods by the appellant to the respondent for transport, the detention and non-delivery of the goods on the instructions of the Commercial Tax Officer (for short the CTO ) of the State and the refusal to deliver the goods of the appellant even after the orders of the High Court for non-payment of demurrage charges are not in dispute. There is not much controversy as to the justification of the non-release or detention of the goods by the respondent as long as there were orders of the CTO to detain the same. There is not much controversy as to the justification of the non-release or detention of the goods by the respondent as long as there were orders of the CTO to detain the same. The controversy arose only on account of the refusal by the respondent to release the goods even after the orders of the High Court and the orders of the Commercial Tax Authorities themselves, on the sole ground that demurrage charges for the period commencing from 7 days after the arrival of the goods till the date of delivery are to be paid. It is this fact that gave rise to the claims and counter- claims. Therefore, the central issue is as to whether the respondent was entitled to recover the demurrage charges from the appellant for the period commencing from the date of arrival of the goods (excluding the first 7 days) till the date of order of release, if the answer to this question is in affirmative, the judgment of the trial Court and decrees in both the suits have to be sustained. On the other hand, if it is in the negative, both the decrees are nullity and have to be set aside. ( 10 ) IT is evident from the pleadings and evidence that the goods were entrusted to the respondent for transporting the same from Silvasa to Hyderabad. On arrival of the goods at Hyderabad, the respondent received instructions from the CTO not to release the same. It appears, the respondent filed a Writ Petition when it was sought to be treated as a dealer in respect of the goods entrusted to it by the appellant. When the factum of detention of the goods under the orders of the CTO were intimated to the appellant, it filed W. P. No. 6464/84 and obtained orders of release of the goods. Despite the said orders of this Court, the CTO did not order release. The appellants was constrained to file C. C. No. 164/84. It was only then that the CTO of the concerned area ordered release of the goods. It is an undisputed fact that in spite of the orders of the CTO directing release, the goods were not released and the respondent insisted on payment of demurrage charges. The appellants was constrained to file C. C. No. 164/84. It was only then that the CTO of the concerned area ordered release of the goods. It is an undisputed fact that in spite of the orders of the CTO directing release, the goods were not released and the respondent insisted on payment of demurrage charges. The stand of the respondent in this regard is evident from its pleadings in the written statment filed in O. S. No. 1383/84, which are to the following effect:-"as and when the consignee approached this defendant for delivery, they were directed to the office of the Commercial Tax Officer to get the release order to enable this defendant deliver the goods. There was no need for this defendant to get the goods released as this defendant at no point of time had any interest in the goods except to the extent of the freight and demurrage payable thereon. (para 4 (a))""this defendant was well within its rights to have insisted on the payment of its dues towards demurrage etc. , before delivering the goods. (para 5 (b))""this defendant has been consistently making it clear to the plaintiff that this defendant was not at all liable for any claim of the plaintiff and that the defendant would not release the goods unless demurrage charges were paid. "it is no doubt true that there is a condition of contract between the appellant and the respondent that if the delivery of the goods is not taken within 7 days from the date of its arrival, the appellant is liable to pay demurrage charges. Therefore, it has to be seen whether there was any failure on the part of the appellant in taking the delivery of the goods within 7 days from the date of arrival of the goods. ( 11 ) IT is undisputed that the appellant was ready and willing to take the delivery of the goods and the respondent refused delivery only acting on the instructions of the CTO. Therefore, the failure in taking delivery of the goods cannot be attributed to the appellant. The goods continued to be with the respondent under the orders of the CTO. As a consequence of the orders passed in WP and filing of contempt case, the CTO in turn asked the respondent to release the goods. Therefore, the failure in taking delivery of the goods cannot be attributed to the appellant. The goods continued to be with the respondent under the orders of the CTO. As a consequence of the orders passed in WP and filing of contempt case, the CTO in turn asked the respondent to release the goods. It is at this stage that the respondent offered to release the goods, but only on payment of demurrage charges. If the goods continued to remain undelivered on account of refusal or indifference on the part of the appellant, the respondent would have been justified in insisting on payment of demurrage charges by the appellant as a condition precedent for delivery of the goods. When the respondent was very much aware that the appellant was not at all responsible for the delay in taking delivery of the goods, the insistence for payment of demurrage charges for the period during which the goods were in their custody by virtue of the orders of the CTO, cannot be justified. ( 12 ) THE carrier of the goods will be entitled to claim demurrage only when it is in a position to deliver the goods to the cosignee but the latter did not take steps to take delivery. If a 3rd party, be it State or some others, intervened and disabled the carrier from delivering the goods, then the liability to pay the demurrages would be either absolute against such 3rd party or at-least joint and several against the 3rd party and the consignee. The carrier cannot hold the cosignee liable for the acts of a 3rd party. In case the carrier intends to recover the demurrage charges, it should proceed against the 3rd party on account of whose intervention the delivery of goods could not be effected as well as the consignee. In this case, it is only on account of the orders of detention passed by the CTO that the respondent was prevented from delivering the goods and conversely the appellant was disabled from taking delivery of the goods. While the order passed by the CTO is the cause, the loss sustained by the appellant in the form of damages and the claim of respondent for demurrage are only its effects. Now, it has to be seen as to how both the parties have addressed themselves to this cause. While the order passed by the CTO is the cause, the loss sustained by the appellant in the form of damages and the claim of respondent for demurrage are only its effects. Now, it has to be seen as to how both the parties have addressed themselves to this cause. ( 13 ) IN O. S. No. 1383/84, it was specifically pleaded in the plaint in paragraph 6 as under : "after the inspection, discussion took place on the scope of the common action that has to be taken against the Commercial Tax Department. " according to this pleading, the appellant as well as the respondent are aggrieved by the acts and omissions of the Commercial Tax Department and that both of them have discussed as to the scope of the action to be taken against the department. This pleading was not contradicted in the written statement. Even in the absence of this pleading, neither the appellant nor the respondent could have proceeded against each other for the lossess and damages sustained by them on account of the orders passed by the CTO. If there was no justification on the part of the CTO in ordering the detention, the department is liable to pay demurrage charges. On the other hand, if the orders are justified, the appellant becomes liable for the demurrage charges. The law on this aspect is no longer res integra. This Court in its judgment in Suguna Steels v. The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-2 (in WP. No. 5864/2000 (Reported in 2000 (5) Andh LT 417) held that where the goods are kept in customs warehouse and are not released on account of the refusal by the Custom Authorities to clear the same and if ultimately the orders of the Custom Authorities are varied in appeal or other proceedings, the department alone is liable to bear the demurrage charges. ( 14 ) REVIEWING the case law on this subject, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. C. L. Jain Woolen Mills, 2001 (5) SCC 345 , held that where an illegal detention by the Customs Authorities prevented the importer from releasing the goods, the Customs Authorities would be bound to bear the demurrage charges in the absence of any provisions in the Customs Act absolving the Customs Authorities from that liability. Their Lordships found that there was no provision in the Customs Act absolving the Customs Authorities from their liability to pay demurrage charges on account of the detention of the goods through their order which was found illegal. The provisions of the States Tax Act are in no way different and in fact are not that stringent as the provisions of the Customs Act in this aspect. The consequences that follow on account of the orders of detention made under the Customs Act would easily follow in case of detention of the goods under the Taxation Laws of the State. ( 15 ) THIS question, which is central to both the suits, depended mainly on the issue as to whether the order of detention passed by CTO was proper or not. In a way, the order of release passed by the Court and later the order of the CTO for release of the goods tilts the balance in favour of the appellant. The concerned authority at whose instance the goods were detained; not having been made party in both the suits, much less necessary issues having been framed in this regard, there could not have been, and we are of the opinion that, there was not an effective adjudication of the suits. The authority who passed the order of detention of the goods was a necessary party to the suits. As was observed earlier, the entire cause for the claims and counter-claims by the appellant and the respondents is the order of detention passed by the CTO and unless that cause was addressed to, no adjudication in accordance with law can be expected in the suits. Inasmuch as the suits were adjudicated in the absence of necessary party and without addressing the main cause, the judgment and the decrees cannot be sustained. The suits filed by the appellant as well as the respondent suffer from the same infirmity. We accordingly dismiss both the suits. Resultantly, CCCA. No. 68/95 stands dismissed and CCCA. No. 164/94 stands allowed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not pass any order as to costs. Order accordingly.