ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 115 of 2001 dismissing the suit, the plaintiff has preferred the first appeal. By that Judgment, the learned trial Court held that plaintiff failed to establish his claim of getting money from the sole defendant. 2. Plaintiff, Shri Roshan Kumar Surana instituted Money Suit No. 115 of 2001 stating that he is a businessman and deals in food grains under the name and style of “M/s R.K. Jain & Company”. The plaintiff firm has its principal place of business at New Delhi. The defendant is a Federation of Co-operative Societies, owned by the Government of Assam and in the year 1998, Minister of Food and Civil Supplies and the Secretary of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies urged the plaintiff to provide at least 2/3 wagons of onion by procuring the same from Mandi Market in New Delhi as the State was under severe scarcity of onion. Plaintiff agreed to the request made by the Government of Assam. He also received a written communication from the Divisional Manager of the defendant, stationed at New Delhi on 12.11.1998 asking him to despatch 2/3 wagons of onion. Accordingly, plaintiff despatched 326 bags of onion weighing 182.150 quintals on 13.11.1998 and prepared a bill for Rs. 4,66,995/-, including Railway freight of Rs. 29,835/-. The bill in original was provided to the defendant, but thereafter, in spite of repeated requests, no payment was made to the plaintiff. Plaintiff sent notice to the Government for making payment with interest and ultimately was compelled to institute the suit for realization of Rs. 6,84,147/- for principal and interest as on the date of institution of the suit and also for further interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution, till realization. 3. On being summoned, the sole defendant appeared and submitted written statement totally denying the claim of the plaintiff. It was the case of the defendant that plaintiff never supplied onion to the defendant and Divisional Manager of the defendant at New Delhi also did not make any request to the plaintiff for the purpose. 3. On being summoned, the sole defendant appeared and submitted written statement totally denying the claim of the plaintiff. It was the case of the defendant that plaintiff never supplied onion to the defendant and Divisional Manager of the defendant at New Delhi also did not make any request to the plaintiff for the purpose. According to the defendant, the Railway Receipt No. VO 69138, by which, plaintiff claims to have sent onion to the defendant was actually sent by the Divisional Manager of the defendant at New Delhi and not by the plaintiff. The New Delhi branch of the STATEFED had procured onion from market at a price of Rs. 2,400/- per quintal and then sent the same to Guwahati vide the aforesaid R/R, and accordingly, bill has also been cleared. Plaintiff neither supplied the goods to the defendant nor was there any reason for sending and as such, the defendant prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. 4. Upon such rival contentions of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as six issues, which are quoted below: (1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (3) Whether Divisional Manager of the defendant at New Delhi vide letter dated 12.11.1998 asked the plaintiff to despatch 2/3 wagons of onion and the plaintiff despatched the same on 12.11.98? (4) Whether the plaintiff sent original R/R or not to the defendant to take delivery of the said onion? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? (6) What relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 5. In course of trial, plaintiff submitted examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit and adduced some documents. The defendant, however, did not adduce any evidence but cross-examined the P.W. 1. Learned trial Court found that letter dated 12.11.1998, claimed to have been sent by the Divisional Manager of defendant at New Delhi to the plaintiff was sought to be proved by the plaintiff vide Exhibit – 1. In Exhibit – 1, it is mentioned that as per assurance given by the Managing Director, payment will be arranged early but Exhibit – 4 (R/R) reveals that the consignment was sent by the Assam State Headquarters at New Delhi and sent to Assam STATEFED Headquarters at Guwahati. In Exhibit – 1, it is mentioned that as per assurance given by the Managing Director, payment will be arranged early but Exhibit – 4 (R/R) reveals that the consignment was sent by the Assam State Headquarters at New Delhi and sent to Assam STATEFED Headquarters at Guwahati. The consignment was shown to have been booked on 13.11.1998 but it does not contain the name of the plaintiff as consignor. Even the plaintiff could not produce any receipt or document to show that he had purchased the onion from New Delhi. On consideration of these materials, the learned trial Court was of the view that Exhibit – 1 does not show that the plaintiff had sent the onion and that there was no document indicating a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for supply of such onion. Accordingly, the Issue No. 3 was decided partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly against him. 6. Coming to Issue No. 4, the learned trial Court found that the plaintiff did not state anywhere that it had handed over original R/R to the defendant. It also failed to place any evidence that defendant had received the onion from him. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 was decided against the plaintiff. Coming to Issue No. 2, the learned trial Court held that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Having pleaded that supply was made on written request by the Divisional Manager of STATEFED at New Delhi, the plaintiff did not make him party. The Managing Director of the Food and Civil Supplies of the Government of Assam is also not impleaded although it is pleaded specifically that plaintiff was pressurized by the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies and Secretary of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies for making onion supply to the defendant. According to the learned trial Court, not only the State of Assam but also the concerned Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies and the Divisional Manager, STATEFED at New Delhi were the necessary parties. 7. The Issue No. 1 is with regard to limitation. This issue, however, decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 5 was decided against the plaintiff holding that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. The Issue No. 1 is with regard to limitation. This issue, however, decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 5 was decided against the plaintiff holding that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Plaintiff is not entitled to any decree as prayer for and consequently, Issue No. 6 was also decided against the plaintiff. What these findings, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 dismissed the suit in its entirety. It is this judgment, which brought to challenge under the present appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the sole respondent, although name of the learned counsel has been shown in the cause-list. 9. Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant argued that he produced originals of Exhibits – 1 and 2 before the learned trial Court, although it is mentioned that the photocopies were only produced. By Exhibit – 9, the defendant was asked to produce the originals of books of accounts maintained by the Divisional Manager, STATEFED at New Delhi but same has not been produced so presumption should be taken that plaintiff proved his case. With this submission, he argued that the appeal be allowed and suit of the plaintiff be decreed. I have perused the lower Court’s records, including the deposition of the sole witness examined by the plaintiff and the documents brought on record by him. 10. Plaintiff stated in paragraph 4 of the application that he despatched 326 bags of onion weighing 182.150 quintal on 13.11.1998 through Railway vide R/R No. VO 69138, Wagon No. CR 92482, Ex-Delhi to Guwahati. Thereafter, he prepared bill of Rs. 4,66,995/-, including actual freight of Rs. 29,835/- and handed over the bill to the then Divisional Manager, STATEFED, New Delhi, who acknowledged the same on 19.11.1998. But the R/R in question shows that the defendant at New Delhi as the consignor. It is important to note here that plaintiff has not pleaded in the said paragraph that he made the despatch and obtained the original R/R from Railway Booking Counter, and thereafter, handed over the original R/R to the Divisional Manager, STATEFED at New Delhi. What has been pleaded is that he handed over the bill of Rs.4,66,995/- to the Divisional Manager, STATEFED, New Delhi. What has been pleaded is that he handed over the bill of Rs.4,66,995/- to the Divisional Manager, STATEFED, New Delhi. In course of evidence, he has produced Exhibit – 1 letter to show that this Divisional Manager of STATEFED, New Delhi had requested him on 12.11.1998 to provide 2/3 wagons of onion to the sold defendant. The letter dated 12.11.1998 was addressed to him and so the original was in his custody but in course of evidence, he produced only the photocopy of the said letter. In course of cross-examination, he specifically admitted that he did not produce the original letter. The letter was thereafter exhibited as Exhibit – 1 under objection and so it has not been exhibited duly in accordance with law. Plaintiff has neither impleaded the Divisional Manager, STATEFED, New Delhi nor has he been called as witness. So there was no scope to examine as to whether any letter was at all issued by the said officer to the plaintiff as claimed in paragraph 4 of the plaint. 11. Exhibit – 4 is the concerned R/R, which shows that 326 bags of onion were sent by STATEFED, New Delhi to STATEFED, Guwahati. There is no mention of the name of the plaintiff anywhere to show that this consignment was booked by the plaintiff. Rather it gives credence to the defendant’s case that onion was procured by the Divisional Manager, New Delhi and sent to Guwahati office of defendant. 12. Exhibit – 2 is a hand written loose-sheet of paper, showing weighment of onion. Now plaintiff did not lead evidence as to who had prepared it and who had signed the same. It is also not clear as to whether this statement was prepared in regular course of business or not. Moreover, this paper is also nothing but a photocopy of the original whereas original has not been produced. Exhibit – 2, therefore, has neither been proved in accordance with law nor has the same any nexus to the case of the plaintiff. 13. Exhibit – 3 is the bill raised by the plaintiff to the defendant. Exhibit – 5 is the memo of weighment only and it does not contain name of any party. By Exhibit – 9, plaintiff made demand to the Managing Director of the defendant for Rs. 4,66,995/-. 14. 13. Exhibit – 3 is the bill raised by the plaintiff to the defendant. Exhibit – 5 is the memo of weighment only and it does not contain name of any party. By Exhibit – 9, plaintiff made demand to the Managing Director of the defendant for Rs. 4,66,995/-. 14. In course of cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he could not produce any paper to show that he had purchased 182.150 quintal of onion from Mandi Market in New Delhi. So on perusal of these documents, namely, Exhibit – 1, Exhibit – 2 and Exhibit – 4, it is clear that although the plaintiff claimed to have purchased 326 bags of onion weighing 182.150 quintal from Mandi Market, New Delhi but he could not produce any paper to show that he had so purchased. He did not examine any witness to show that he had purchased it on payment of cash money or otherwise from the market. He could not show a scrap of paper that it is he and not the Divisional Manager, STATEFED, New Delhi who had despatched the consignment of 326 bags of onion from the New Delhi to Guwahati. It is also noticeable that in the plaint, nowhere it is claimed that onion sent by the plaintiff was received by the defendant rather it is the case of the defendant that vide the aforesaid R/R, onion was sent from Delhi by its Divisional Manager, New Delhi to Guwahati. The learned trial Court has considered evidence on record and has held that plaintiff could not establish his claim of supply and purchasing the onion from Mandi Market at New Delhi or that he had sent it to the defendant at Guwahati. Rather, Exhibit – 4 adduced by the plaintiff establishes that the onion in question was sent by STATEFED, New Delhi to STATEFED, Guwahati. This being the position, the finding of the learned trial Court that plaintiff could not establish his case cannot be doubted. 15. Apart from what has been stated above, there is yet another aspect of the matter, which cannot be ignored. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant company is owned by Government of Assam and so the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies and the Secretary of the concerned Department pressurized the plaintiff to send 2/3 wagons of onion to Guwahati in view of its scarcity. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant company is owned by Government of Assam and so the Minister of Food and Civil Supplies and the Secretary of the concerned Department pressurized the plaintiff to send 2/3 wagons of onion to Guwahati in view of its scarcity. Thus, plaintiff asserted that he had sent the consignment to Guwahati at the instance of Government of Assam which in turn, has not been made party in the suit. If it is the case of the plaintiff that he sent the consignment at the written advice of the Divisional Manager of STATEFED, New Delhi, who ought to have made him party so that the correctness or otherwise of the statement can be ascertained. But the said officer has also not been made party. If the claim of the plaintiff is against the State of Assam, in that case, suit becomes not maintainable because of non-compliance of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 16. Here is a money suit where the plaintiff claims that he purchased 326 bags of onion in New Delhi on the request of the Government of Assam and the defendant and then despatched the same to Guwahati through Railway vide Exhibit – 4 Railway Receipt. But coming to the witness box, he could neither establish that he purchased onion from the Mandi Market nor could he establish that he had sent onion himself to the defendant and handed over the R/R to the Divisional Manager, STATEFED, New Delhi. Thus, even on the face of pleadings, there is a huge gap in the story propagated by the plaintiff. Considering the pros and cons, including the pleadings and the evidence, it appears that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove its claim and so the learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 17. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Send back the records after framing of decree.