Respondent pursuant to notice issued by Regional Engineering College, Srinagar through its Central Purchase Unit (Annexure-A3) published in Srinagar based local dailies submitted his offer and quotations for supply of requisitioned articles/goods. The quotation and offer was accepted vide letter dated 7.2.1991 addressed to petitioner, subject to set terms and conditions. Respondent/plaintiff supplied the articles/goods to appellant/defendants regarding six items. After further clarification sought and furnished, the matter was concluded and supply was made in full in terms of the specifications. However, when bill was submitted for payment, there was some delay and finally petitioner-supplier was asked to remove and lift 18 items out of the 54 items supplied by him from the premises of Engineering College. Though the reasons for lifting of these 18 items were not accepted, but having regard to the fact that no payment was released, petitioner had no choice but to lift back these items earlier accepted as per supply order by the defendants. The above goods/articles lifted and removed by the plaintiff were of no use to plaintiff as he was unable to find any buyer for the goods, as the goods have become finally useless and loss was caused to the extent of value of the goods. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,867.85 with interest for the loss which the plaintiff suffered in respect of the above article/goods. However, the defendants despite recording their presence on number of dates, were finally set exparte. More than one application was moved for setting aside exparte proceedings, the last being the one moved on 18.9.93. On consideration, the trial court vide order dated 30.12.1994 dismissed the application. An appeal was filed against this order in the High Court (CIA 21/95). This appeal too was dismissed. Proceedings against defendants, respondents continued exparte, though the defendants at times participated in the proceedings and some times absented from the proceedings. The trial court by the impugned judgement dated 8.11.1999 decreed the suit for Rs. 24,117.85, with interest @ 10% P.A., from the date of institution of the Suit till the realization of the decretal amount. 2. Heard. Proceedings against defendants, respondents continued exparte, though the defendants at times participated in the proceedings and some times absented from the proceedings. The trial court by the impugned judgement dated 8.11.1999 decreed the suit for Rs. 24,117.85, with interest @ 10% P.A., from the date of institution of the Suit till the realization of the decretal amount. 2. Heard. The appellants counsel has assailed the trial court judgment on the ground that the goods have been rejected and returned as per the terms and conditions of acceptance of the quotation/offer by the respondent, in as much as it is provided that on inspection of goods by authorized agency of the College in presence of the supplier, the deficiency and discrepancy, if any notified, shall be rectified/replaced/made good within one month of its intimation to the supplier. Once the goods were inspected and deficiency notified to petitioner, the college authorities were within their rights to ask the petitioner to lift and remove the sub standard/defective goods. The supplier/plaintiff did remove and lift the goods from the premises. He cannot be awarded damages/compensation in disregard to the express condition of supply order and without assessment of damages as difference between the price obtained and the market price, of such goods. The counsel also contends that the liability of respondent is on behalf of the Regional Engineering College and not personal liability. Besides it is stated that the rate of interest charged is excessive having regard to the prevalent rate of interest during the relevant period. 3. The respondents counsel on the other hand submits that the goods have not been returned, lifted and removed because there was any defect or deficiency in the goods, but for the reasons that the plaintiff was forced to do so as the whole payments on all 54 items of goods supplied were withheld, notwithstanding, that the objection was taken to just few items of the goods supplied. Beside, there was no defect or deficiency in the goods and no term or condition of supply order or quotation was infarcted. The goods which petitioner was compelled to take back, were a total loss as is given in para 22 of the plaint. the value of these lost goods is subject of the decree. Beside, there was no defect or deficiency in the goods and no term or condition of supply order or quotation was infarcted. The goods which petitioner was compelled to take back, were a total loss as is given in para 22 of the plaint. the value of these lost goods is subject of the decree. the counsel further submits that having regard to the conduct of the respondents, respondents are just dragging on the matter on one pretext or the other. The liability of defendants continues to be liability of College as they represent the College and placed orders on behalf of the College for supply of goods/articles for use in the College. the liability of the defendants representing the institution and REC Srinagar, is inseparable. So far as interest part is concerned the counsel further submits that reasonable amount of interest has been awarded. Now as far as pleadings are concerned, defendants/appellants have no defence to the suit. In absence of written statement, applying the Rule of pleadings the plaint averments are admitted. In plaint, it is unequivocally averred that supplies were made to defendants in accordance with the specifications are that no objection was taken or defect/deficiency pointed out in respect of any item except regarding six items and that too regarding their make, model, specification by letter dated 2.3.1991 by the then Medical Officer posted in REC, respondent No. 3. However, the matter was clarified as desired and that put an end to this contentious issue. The supplies were effected as per the supply order strictly in accordance with the specifications mentioned in the order and accepted without any objection by the defendants. It was only after completing the supplies that subsequently, at the time of forwarding the bill(s) for payment, the respondents asked the plaintiff to remove and lift 18 items, out of the 52 items supplied. It is averred that the contents of the letter are totally false and untrue. However, as the payment was not released to the plaintiff, of the items he was compelled and forced to lift the supply. But all the same the goods lifted and removed were waste as no buyer could be found for the same and the same became liability for the firm and the plaintiff firm had to suffer total financial loss on that aspect. But all the same the goods lifted and removed were waste as no buyer could be found for the same and the same became liability for the firm and the plaintiff firm had to suffer total financial loss on that aspect. These unrebutted averments are supported by statements of plaintiff as his own witness and the other three witnesses examined in the case who also include a Senior Assistant of the R.E.C. Srinagar. Besides the oral statements of the witnesses, rate lists showing the items issued, supply order and the receipt of the goods and items by the R.E.C. College Srinagar, are also on record. The communication dated 2.3.1991 requiring the respondent to mention the mode/make/specification of the shown items is also on record to which the reply on behalf of respondents is on file. The communication addressed to plaintiff/respondent by Medical officer, REC, respondent No. 3 asking the plaintiff to lift the goods not accepted by the REC dated 22.3.91 is also on record. The letter communication shows that the 18 items specified in the letter were inspected but these items have not been accepted. Respondent was asked to supply fresh items to replace these items within period of 15 days and simultaneously he was asked to remove and lift the items from the REC Medical Unit as a pre-condition for payment in respect of the other items/goods accepted by REC. The terms and condition of the supply order would show that after inspection in presence of the supplier, the deficiency would be made up and damaged goods replaced within one month after intimation. Apart from the question whether plaintiff supplier was at all associated with the inspection, the communication itself shows that the condition of one month for making good deficiency of articles or removal or replacement of damaged goods from date of its intimation to the supplier was not followed in the case. Obviously appellants have not observed the condition and cannot be hard to say that the terms and conditions have not been followed by the other side. The trial court has considered all these aspects of the case and evaluated both oral and documentary evidence as also weighed fairly and justly the probabilities of the case to come to the conclusion that the supplier is liable for the damages. The trial court has considered all these aspects of the case and evaluated both oral and documentary evidence as also weighed fairly and justly the probabilities of the case to come to the conclusion that the supplier is liable for the damages. The unrebutted averment n the plaint, of petitioner not finding a user of the articles and having suffered total loss on that count coupled with the evidence on record, is more than to prop-up the plaintiffs case for damages and negate the contention of the appellant defendant that the price difference between the contract price and the market price to form the basis of damages is not observed in this case. In the premise contextually it cannot be said that under Sales of Goods Act the transaction for sale was not complete to serve as basis for recovery of damages. The conclusion of the trial Judge are based on plaintiffs part of pleading (Plaint), appreciation of evidence, weighting of preponderance of probabilities and consideration of the case as a whole. The judgment has to be upheld on legal and factual parameters. the case P.S.N.S Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. Ltd. & Anr v. Express Newspapaers Ltd. Bombay, 1968 (2. S.C.R.) 239, cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is not as such applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. However, on the question of interest, it is seen that the trial judge has awarded interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of institution of the suit. Having regard to the prevalent average rate of interest during the relevant period and the fact that the phenomenon of falling interest rates during last three years is wide spread, it would in the totality of circumstances and facts of the case be just and proper if the rate of interest is reduced to 6% from 10% payable from the date of institution of the suit till payment/realisation of the decretal amount. It may also be of some interest to the defendant that the three defendants have been in fact acting in the matter and transaction for and on behalf of Engineering College Srinagar, therefor, the liability of these defendants and REC is common. It may also be of some interest to the defendant that the three defendants have been in fact acting in the matter and transaction for and on behalf of Engineering College Srinagar, therefor, the liability of these defendants and REC is common. The contention of the appellants counsel that the decretal amount is realizable either from the REC or defendants, is not contested by the respondents/defendants, therefor, inter se, the REC and the Defendants, this matter is left open. 5. In the above view of the matter, appeal is disposed of with the modification indicated and observation made as above. CIVIL REVISION NO. 64 of 2002. 6. In this revision, order dated 11.5.2004 in Execution Petition 6 of 2000 is under challenge. Execution petition for execution of the decree in question is laid. Objection has been raised by the other side. It speaks of pendency of Appeal, deficient payment of court fee and passing of the decree in contravention of Jammu and Kashmir Sales of Goods Act and Contract. All these contentions have been rejected by the executing court to record and direct the execution of the decree against the judgment debtor. These aspects of the case have been examined in Appeal No. 24/03, which has been disposed of by this order. The contentions except the payment of deficient court fee have been and are in the facts and circumstances of this case over ruled. The objections raised cannot as such vitiate the executablity of the decree. None of the objections is tenable to render the decree in question un-executable. The objections touching the form and irregularity or illegality of the decree does not go to the roots of the decree None of the objections is to render the judgment and decree void, ab initio. The impugned order is not legally infirm, or does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The other aspect to this matter is that subsequent to the impugned order dated 11.5.2002, the executing court has passed another detailed order, subsequently on 20.6.2002 and in terms the earlier impugned order has merged with the subsequent order which in fact is the only order touching the execution of the decree and attachment of the decretal amount. The earlier order has vanquished. This subsequent order dated 20.6.2002 is not under challenge. 7. In the above view of the matter, revision is not merited. Dismissed. The earlier order has vanquished. This subsequent order dated 20.6.2002 is not under challenge. 7. In the above view of the matter, revision is not merited. Dismissed. Inform court below of this order. Send back record. Disposed of.