Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 982 (JHR)

Gopal Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2010-10-25

N.N.TIWARI

body2010
Order This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant. 2. The plaintiff had filed suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa praying for a decree of recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,57,275.72 from the defendants with future interest till realization. 3. The plaintiff's case was that he 'was the proprietor of M/s Mithila Art Press, Chaibasa. The District Welfare Officer had placed several orders on behalf of the State of Bihar for printing envelopes and other materials. The articles were printed' and were supplied to the office of the District Welfare Officer. Thereafter, two bills were submitted being Hill No.1 dated 25.4.97 and Bill No.2 dated 2.7.97 for Rs. 43,632/and Rs. 1,17,663.23 respectively. The total amount of the bill was Rs. 1,61,925.23. but in spite of repeated demands and requests of the plaintiff, the bills were not paid. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a notice on the State of Bihar under Section 80 C.P.C. but in spite of service of notice, the bills were not paid. The plaintiff, thereafter, instituted the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit. It was, inter alia, stated that the' order was placed to the plaintiff to supply the materials at the rate approved vide Order No. 249 dated 18.4.97 and these included (i) Hand Bills 25,000/- @ Rs. 400/- per thousand, (ii) Posters 18 inches cross 22 inches-200 @ Rs. 4/- per piece, and (iii) Identity cards 3 inches cross 4 inches5000 @ Rs. 0.08 per piece. The plaintiff had not submitted the bills in accordance with the said rate, rather he had submitted an arbitrary bill of Rs. 1,61,295.23 instead of the actual amount of Rs. 57,800/-. The defendant thus denied the claim. 4. Learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidences on record came to the finding that there was no document regarding the supply of 2,200 posters by the plaintiff to the defendants, which were said to be supplied on the oral order of the defendants. The plaintiff was, thus, entitled to get the amount for the supply made on the written order dated 18.4.1997. Learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that he had supplied the articles on oral order. 5. The plaintiff was, thus, entitled to get the amount for the supply made on the written order dated 18.4.1997. Learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that he had supplied the articles on oral order. 5. Learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff has been able to prove that the articles were supplied to the defendants on the basis of the written order and there was no payment for the same. Learned Trial Court found that the principal amount of Rs. 57.800/- was due and payable to the plaintiff and decreed the said amount against the defendants with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of submission of the bills to the date of payment. Learned Trial Court thus decreed the suit in part. 6. The plaintiff then. preferred appeal in the Court of the District Judge. West Singhbhum, Chaibasa being Money Appeal No. 1/03. Learned Lower Appellate Court scrutinized the materials and evidences on record and came to its independent finding that there was no evidence on record in support of the plaintiff's claim of supply of articles on the basis of oral order. Learned Lower Appellate Court after due discussion and consideration of facts and evidences of the parties concurred with the finding of learned Trial Court and held that there was no reason for interfering with the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. 7. In the instant appeal the appellant has raised almost the same points which were taken before learned lower appellate Court. The points raised by the appellant were mostly regarding the factual dispute of supply of articles on the basis of the alleged oral order 'of the defendants. The same have been elaborately discussed, thoroughly dealt with and answered against the plaintiff-appellant by two Courts of facts. 8. I find no ground giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided in this second appeal in view of the said concurrent finding of facts by learned Courts below. 9. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.