JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No. 29/2007. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Ramendra Chakraborty for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. T.K. Dey for the respondent. 3. Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 29 of 2007 seeking a decree of Rs. 6,51,020/- with 12% interest thereon from the defendant-appellants alleging inter alia that the plaintiff M/S Nandi & Nandi is a proprietary firm and the plaintiff No. 2 Sailesh Chandra Nandi is the sole proprietor of the firm which used to deal with the business of electrical goods. The defendants are cooperative society constituted under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1974 and they used to purchase goods from the plaintiff for their departmental Store namely 'Aitorma' at Sakuntala Road, Agartala. During the year 2003-2005, the defendants took supply of different articles from the plaintiff and 17 bills for supply of those articles amounting to Rs. 4,28,640/- was due to be paid by the defendants. The defendants within the time did not make payment and even after repeated demand payments were not made and so the plaintiffs issued notice under Section 164 of the Tripura Cooperative Societies Act, 1974 but even after service of notice, the payments were not made. The plaintiff contended that being a businessman, the plaintiff would earn at least 20% profit over the amount lying due to be paid and the plaintiff already spent about Rs. 5000/- towards recovery of the amount and therefore, the plaintiff claimed business loss of Rs. 2,17,380/- and expenses Rs. 5000 in total Rs. 6,51,020/- and prayed for a decree. 4. The defendant-appellants contested the suit by filing written statement contending that because of financial hardship for years together, the dues could not be paid by the defendants and the claim of the plaintiff of business loss @20% per annum and Rs. 5000/- towards expenses for claiming the amount as well as the claim of interest was not tenable and hence, decree as prayed for should not be passed. It is also contended by the defendants that the State has not been made a party and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 5. 5000/- towards expenses for claiming the amount as well as the claim of interest was not tenable and hence, decree as prayed for should not be passed. It is also contended by the defendants that the State has not been made a party and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 5. The trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties formulated following 4(four) issues, namely:- "1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for payment of Rs. 6,51,020.00 by the defendant? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get interest on the said amount from the defendant and if so, the rate of interest? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief/reliefs?" 6. In course of trial plaintiff Sailesh Chandra Nandi examined himself as P.W. 1 and also proved the documents i.e. the bills lying due to be paid and the notice issued under Section 164 of the Tripura Cooperative Societies Act were proved in support of his case. 7. On behalf of the defendant-appellants Sri Santanu Debbarma, Chief Executive Officer of Tripura State Cooperative Consumers' Federation Ltd. was examined as D.W. 1. 8. Considering the evidence of both side, the trial Court decided the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit for an amount of Rs. 6,51,020/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the appellants has submitted that the defendant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are public servants and so as required under Order XXII, Rule 5(a), the State is a necessary party and since the State has not been made a party, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He has also submitted that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are public officers and as per Section 79of the CPC notice ought to be given to them under Section 80 of CPC and since no notice has been given, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner V. Ramesh Chander Jha, reported in : AIR 1990 SC 648 . 10. In support of his contention, he has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner V. Ramesh Chander Jha, reported in : AIR 1990 SC 648 . 10. It is an admitted position that the defendant appellant No. 1 is the Manager of Aitorma of Tripura State Cooperative Consumers' Federation Ltd. and defendant No. 2 is the Tripura State Cooperative Consumer Federation Ltd. represented through its Chief Executive Officer. 11. Learned counsel Mr. Dey has submitted that the plaintiff supplied the goods to the Manager Aitorma, a concern of Tripura State Cooperative Consumers' Federation Ltd. and so the Manager as well as the Tripura State Cooperative Consumers' Federation Ltd. both has been made party and while the suit has been instituted against the Cooperative Society, the State is not a necessary party. It is an admitted position that the Chief Executive Officer of Tripura State Cooperative Consumers' Federation is an officer deputed from the state Govt. but that does not mean that the Cooperative Society has lost its identity. A Cooperative Society is a juristic person and is guided by the provisions Tripura Cooperative Societies Act, 1974. For instituting a case against the Cooperative Society, the State Govt. is not required to be made a party. May be the Cooperative Society is financed by the State but that does not mean that the cooperative society lost its identity as a cooperative society. Notice as required under Section 164 of the Tripura Cooperative Societies Act, has admittedly been given and the defendant-appellants duly replied the notice wherein the claim made by the plaintiff has not been disputed or denied. So, I find no force in the argument made by learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty that the suit is not maintainable for not arraying the State Govt. as a party and also for not issuing notice to the defendants under Section 80 of the CPC. 12. The Supreme Court decision referred by learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty is totally misplaced and I find nothing to apply the ratio of that decision in the fact of the present case. 13. The next argument advanced by learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty is that it is an admitted position that an amount of Rs. 4,28,640/- lying due to be paid against 17 Nos. Chakraborty is totally misplaced and I find nothing to apply the ratio of that decision in the fact of the present case. 13. The next argument advanced by learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty is that it is an admitted position that an amount of Rs. 4,28,640/- lying due to be paid against 17 Nos. of bills and the defendants are ready to make the payments but the payments could not be made in time because of financial hardship of the cooperative society. The amount of Rs. 2,17,380/- towards business loss and the amount of expenses of Rs. 5000/- has been wrongly decreed by the trial Court and hence, decree cannot sustain. 14. Learned counsel Mr. Dey referring to Exhibit 1 series submitted that every bill consist a note that interest @21% per annum will be charged if bill is not settled within 30 days and it is an admitted position that the bills were not paid within 30 days. Bills were raised on different dates during the year 2003 to 2005. The suit was instituted in the year 2007. The plaintiff is a businessman. He would definitely earn profit on his business by selling the goods of his business establishment. Since the defendants did not make payment in time, the claim of the plaintiff @20% business loss per annum over the amount due to be paid cannot be said to be altogether illegal. Further, as I find D.W. 1 in his cross examination clearly stated-- "We admit that the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 6,51,020/- from us against the supply of different kinds of articles. Due to financial crisis we failed to make payment of the said amount". 15. In view of the above admission of D.W. 1, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Tripura Cooperative Consumers' Federation Ltd., I think the trial Court committed nothing wrong in decreeing the total amount as prayed by the plaintiff. 16. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal stands dismissed with costs. 17. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this judgment.