JUDGMENT : 1. The judgment and decree dated 15.6.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 92 of 2006 has been called in question by the plaintiff of the suit in the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in entirety. 2. The present appellant, as Plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 92 of 2006 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3 at Guwahati on 30.5.2006 stating that it is partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and engaged in business of supplying tools and machinery to Government and Non-Government Organization. The defendant No. 2 issued a notice on 16.8.2005 from registered firm/ suppliers/ contractors for supplying Hearing Kits, Wheel Chairs, T.V and Tape Recorder etc. to be supplied under implementation of ADIP Scheme sponsored by Govt. of India. Defendant No. 2 being a registered firm submitted sealed quotation for the purpose. On 19.8.2005 defendant No.2 placed order for supply of 600 Hearing Kits @ Rs.10,248/-, 450 nos. of wheel chair @ Rs.10,798/-, 260 TV Sets @ Rs. 19,998/- each and 1,500 nos. of Tape Recorders @ Rs.2,495/- each. Out of the same supply order, plaintiff supplied as many as 600 Hearing Kits, value of which was Rs.61,48,800/- and 70 nos. of wheel chairs valuing to Rs.7,55,860/- on 14.11.2005. The office of the defendant No. 2 received the same which was counter signed by none other than defendant No. 2. Thereafter, plaintiff submitted bill for Rs.69,04,660/- . Ten days, thereafter, on 29.8.2005, defendant No. 2 issued another supply order for 298 Hearing Kits and 180 nos. of wheel chairs at the previous rate which the plaintiff supplied on 14.11.2005 and office of the defendant no.2 duly received the same. The acknowledgment is counter signed by defendant No.2. The plaintiff submitted bill for this consignment at Rs.49,97,544/-. The defendant No. 2 issued two cheques on 21.11.2005 on State Bank of India, Beltola Branch for Rs. 69,06,660/- and on SBI Dispur Branch for an amount of Rs.49,97,544 as against the two aforesaid bills of the plaintiffs. But on being presented the cheques were dishonoured. The plaintiff submitted bill for this consignment at Rs.49,97,544/-. The defendant No. 2 issued two cheques on 21.11.2005 on State Bank of India, Beltola Branch for Rs. 69,06,660/- and on SBI Dispur Branch for an amount of Rs.49,97,544 as against the two aforesaid bills of the plaintiffs. But on being presented the cheques were dishonoured. While cheque dated 21.11.2005 was dishonoured for giving wrong account number and using wrong chequebook, the cheque dated 22.11.2005 of the Dispur Branch of SBI was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The plaintiff made request for payment to defendant No. 2 on several occasions, however, to no avail and under such compelling circumstance, plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendant by registered post demanding payment of the aforesaid amount within the notice period. Even after service of notice, no payment was made and therefore the suit was instituted for a total sum of Rs.1,19, 02,204/- along with other reliefs. The defendants appeared and submitted written statement on being summoned with two usual objections as to maintainability of the suit. It was claimed that the suit is not maintainable, that there is no cause of action, that the suit is bad for defect of parties and that the plaintiff does not have any right to institute the suit against the answering defendants. In para-8 of the written statement, the defendants stated that Notice Inviting Tender dated 16.8.2005 was never officially issued from the Commissioner for Persons with Disability and that office of the Commissioner is yet to be declared as head of department by Government and consequently the defendant No. 2 does not have drawing and disbursing power at all. Besides , no fund was sanctioned by Government under such scheme in the name of the defendant No. 2 during the financial year 2005-06 and no such fund was received by the office since its inception till December, 2004. Under such circumstances, there was no scope for issuing any tender for supply of items by defendant No.2 at all. It was mentioned in the said paragraph that defendant No.2 cannot step outside his jurisdiction in the matter of implementation of ADIP scheme. The defendants specifically denied in para-9 about issuing of any supply order. Under such circumstances, there was no scope for issuing any tender for supply of items by defendant No.2 at all. It was mentioned in the said paragraph that defendant No.2 cannot step outside his jurisdiction in the matter of implementation of ADIP scheme. The defendants specifically denied in para-9 about issuing of any supply order. In para-10 of the written statement, it is further stated that there is no official records to show that defendant No. 2 issued any NIT or that he received any fund since its inception warranting him to issue tender for supply of materials not to speak of the amount for which the suit was instituted. It is further stated in para-11 that defendant No. 2 does not have any bank account in the State. So averments made in para-8 of the plaint about issuance of cheque by defendant No. 2 cannot arise. It is expressly doubted that whole affair was manipulated with malafide intention and it was rather an attempt to mislead the Government to embezzle Government money. In paragraph-12 of the written statement, although service of notice under 80 CPC was admitted but it was pointed out that there being no correct address of the notice issuing firm, it was not possible to locate the exact place of the firm. In the same paragraph-, the defendants stated that Paban Kalita who is said to have received the supplies, is not at all an employee of the department and he must be a fictitious person. The department, therefore, requested Dispur Police Station for holding an enquiry into the matter. The defendants pleaded that there was no lawful claim of the plaintiff for getting money. In para-14, the defendants made a revelation that the office of the defendant No.2 was said to be set up in the month of December, 2004 and one Sri Gokul Chandra Sharma was the first incumbent. But during his period, there was absolutely no functioning in the office of the defendant No. 2 and there was no correspondence whatsoever from the said office. It was specifically pleaded that not a single file/register was opened in the office during the period of GC Sharma and the present incumbent of the office did not receive any record at the time of taking over charges. It was specifically pleaded that not a single file/register was opened in the office during the period of GC Sharma and the present incumbent of the office did not receive any record at the time of taking over charges. Defendants totally denied liability to make any payment saying that Paban Kalita who is said to have received the supply was neither an employee of defendant No. 2 nor of Directorate of Social Welfare. There is no record of giving any supply order to the plaintiff firm and that issuer of the cheque Sri GC Sharma was neither declared DDO nor was he allowed to operate any account in his official capacity. Defendants, therefore, denied all responsibility in the affair and prayed for dismissal of the suit. This written statement was verified by Deputy Secretary of the Social Welfare Department. Upon aforesaid rival contentions of the parties, the learned court framed following twelve issues and allowed the parties to lead their respective evidence: (i) Whether there is cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in law and in fact? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party? (iv) Whether the defendant No.2 issued tender No. Com (D) BF 1/2005/22 dated 16th August 2005? (v) Whether the plaintiff submitted sealed quotation in response to tender? (vi) Whether the defendant No.2 vide office memo No. tender No. Com (D) BF 1/2005/32 dated 29th August 2005 had placed order for supply of six hundred number of hearing kits @ Rs 10,248/- each 450 nos of wheel chairs @Rs.10,798/- each 260 nos. of T.V @ Rs.19,998/- each and Tape recorders 1500 nos @ Rs.2495/-each? (vii) Whether the plaintiff had supplied 600 nos. of hearing kits, 70 Nos of wheel chairs to the defendant on 14.11.2005 and received the same by the defendant No.2.? (viii) Whether the plaintiff in response to order of the defendant No.2 vide office Memo No. Com (D) BF 1/2005/32 dated 29th August 2005 had supplied 298 Nos of hearing kits and 180 Nos. of wheel chairs on 14.11.2005 and received the same by the defendant No.2? (ix) Whether the plaintiff submitted two bills , one for Rs. 69,04, 660/- and another for Rs. 49,97,944/-? of wheel chairs on 14.11.2005 and received the same by the defendant No.2? (ix) Whether the plaintiff submitted two bills , one for Rs. 69,04, 660/- and another for Rs. 49,97,944/-? (x) Whether the defendant No. 2, after verification of the bills had issued two cheques being /No. 898657 dated 21.11.2005 of SBI Beltola Branch for an amount of Rs. 69,04,660/- and another cheque No. 898660/- dated 22.11.2005 of SBI, Dispur Branch , Dispur for an amount of Rs. 49,97,544/- towards payment of aforesaid bills amount? (xi) Whether the aforesaid cheques were dishonored by the drawee bank? (xii) Whether the plaintiff is legally entitled to get the bill amount? 3. The plaintiff examined as many as two witnesses. PW-1 is Abdul Kayum , one of the partners of the firm and PW-2 is an employee of the firm. PWs exhibited as many as 20 documents which are marked as Exhbit-1 to 20. DWs on the other hand adduced five documents which are marked as Exhibit-A to Exhibit- E. 4. PW-1 Abdul Kayum has claimed to be a partner and Attorney holder of the plaintiff firm. He exhibited registered deed of partnership, Power of Attorney and certificate of registration of firm as Exhbit-1, 2 and 3 respectively. He has adduced Exhbit-4 which is copy of tender dated 16.8.2005 and claimed that by this, defendant No. 2 invited sealed quotation from registered firm/ supplier / contractors for supplying Hearing Kits , wheel chairs etc. under ADIP Scheme. By exhibiting exhibit-5 a copy of the quotation, he sought to establish that plaintiff submitted sealed quotation of the defendant No.2 which by letter dated 29.8.2005 placed order for supplying 600 Hearing kits, 450 wheel chairs, 260 TV Sets and 1500 Tape Recorders @ Rs.10,248/- Rs. 10,798/- Rs.19,998 and Rs.2495/- respectively. He has placed on record the copy of the supply order as Exhbit-6. According to him, vide challan dated 14.11.2005 which was exhibited as Exhibit-7, plaintiff’s firm supplied 600 Hearing Kits and 70 Wheel chairs on 14.11.2005 and the same was received by office which is counter signed by defendant No. 2. Because of such supply plaintiff became entitled to Rs.69, 04, 660/- for which the bill was raised on 14.11.2005 vide Exhbit-8. According to him, vide challan dated 14.11.2005 which was exhibited as Exhibit-7, plaintiff’s firm supplied 600 Hearing Kits and 70 Wheel chairs on 14.11.2005 and the same was received by office which is counter signed by defendant No. 2. Because of such supply plaintiff became entitled to Rs.69, 04, 660/- for which the bill was raised on 14.11.2005 vide Exhbit-8. Although this Exhibit-8 was the copy of the bill dated 14.11.2005, the original of which was not called for and in the absence of any order, the original not being produced by defendants , it is not clear as to how these documents could be compared with the original by the Sheristadar of the court. I have perused the order sheet. It does not appear that plaintiff filed any application as contemplated under Section 66 of the Evidence Act asking for production of the original from the custody of the plaintiff inasmuch as Exhbits-7, 8, 10 and 11 are challans and bills submitted by the plaintiff to the defendants. The plaintiff could not have exhibited this document as they are merely office copies of the original . As pointed out, Exhbit-9 is supply order dated 29.8.2005 Exhibits- 10 and 11 are challans dated 24.11.2005, and bill dated 14.11.2005 respectively. According to PW-1, defendant No. 5. This witness was duly cross-examined by defendants when he admitted that original of Exhbit-5 has not been submitted and Exhbit-5 does not contain any signature. Even Exhibit-6 does not bear office seal of the person namely, Mr. GC Sharma and that this GC Sharma was neither cited as witness nor was he brought to the court to depose . Exhbit-7 does not bear office seal and there is no provision of keeping the same by the office of defendant No.2. He admitted that original of Exhbit-8 has not been submitted and it has not been called for from the office. Exhibit-9 does not bear any office seal and there is no official signature as to who had received the same. He has further submitted that Exhbit-11 has not been submitted and those documents were not called for from the custody of the defendants. He stated that in the last week of November, he approached GC Sharma when Exhibit-12 and 13 cheques were bounced. The bank informed him on 10.12.2005 about insufficiency of funds on Exhbit-15. Mr. He has further submitted that Exhbit-11 has not been submitted and those documents were not called for from the custody of the defendants. He stated that in the last week of November, he approached GC Sharma when Exhibit-12 and 13 cheques were bounced. The bank informed him on 10.12.2005 about insufficiency of funds on Exhbit-15. Mr. GC Sharma has been transferred NIT exhibit does not contain the date of opening of the quotation. He admitted that tender was not opened in front of him prior to receipt of supply order. He could not say as to whether regular procedure of opening tender was followed in the present case. He stated that he did not file any case against GC Sharma in connection with the matter and he has not been impleaded as private party either. This witness was candid in admitting in course of cross-examination that no documents related to the whole process have been called from the office. He denied suggestion that no supply order was issued to him officially and no goods were supplied by him and that it was not received by the office. He however, denied that GC Sharma has issued the order in personal capacity and that Government is not responsible for that. 6. PW-2 , Pravakar Borkakoty who claims to be an employee of the plaintiff’s firm stated that in the month of November of the preceding year, he had accompanied PW-2 to a godown situated within the complex of RK Minerals at Lalmati area of Beltola and assisted him in counting goods downloaded from truck and one Indica car. Said goods were Wheel chairs, Hearing kits and the in-charge of the godown received the goods in his presence. But in course of cross- examination, he stated that he is not engaged under the KD Enterprise which is the plaintiff firm. Later he stated that he works in the plaintiff firm but cannot submit any document in respect to the fact as to whether goods were allowed to be kept in the godown as claimed by him. He could not say who had received the goods and could not say the date on which the supply was made. He however, denied that no supply was made. 7. Defendants examined its Deputy Secretary in the Department of Social Welfare Sri Devananda Chutia as sole witness. He could not say who had received the goods and could not say the date on which the supply was made. He however, denied that no supply was made. 7. Defendants examined its Deputy Secretary in the Department of Social Welfare Sri Devananda Chutia as sole witness. He stated that NIT dated 16.8.2005 was never officially issued from the office of the Commissioner for persons with disability as there is no record in this regard. The said office has not been declared as head of the department by Government and so DW-2 does not have the power of drawal and disbursal. According to him no fund was received by the office since its inception in the month of December, 2004 and so there was no question of issuing any notice for supply . There was no fund sanctioned by Chief-Commissioner during the month of August, 2005 for implementation of ADIP Scheme. He specifically stated on oath that no tender for any purchase/ supply of materials was invited by the defendant No. 2 and that defendant No. 2 does not have any authority to invite tender either as he is not a DDO. Consequently, there was no question of payment of bill amounting to Rs.49,97,544/- and Rs.69,04,660/-. According to him office of the defendant No.2 does not have any bank account anywhere in the State and so the question of issuing cheques is rather surprising. However, on verification, it came to light that the cheques exhibited by the plaintiff were really issued by Gokul Chandra Sharma from his own personal Saving Account. According to DW-1, whole affair is a manipulation of the malafide intention for embezzlement of Government money. He admitted to have receive notice dated 27.3.2006 on 30.3.2006 wherein address of the plaintiff was given. But it was difficult to locate the exact place from description of the notice. This witness claimed that Paban Kalita who is alleged to have received the supply was not an employee of the department and that he must be a fictitious person. The receipt of material from the defendant was denied and it was further stated that the defendants had intimated police in this regard for holding enquiry. DW-1 stated that plaintiff cannot have any claim of any amount not to speak of the amount mentioned therein. The receipt of material from the defendant was denied and it was further stated that the defendants had intimated police in this regard for holding enquiry. DW-1 stated that plaintiff cannot have any claim of any amount not to speak of the amount mentioned therein. He stated specifically that there was no account in the office of the defendant No. 2 rather there was no activity during the relevant period when Sri GC Sharma was incumbent in the office of the defendant No. 2. Moreover, allotment of supply order was without any signature and date and receipt of the material and place of delivery is also doubtful. 8. Plaintiff side cross-examined DW-1. He stated in course of cross-examination that Exhibit –C document is a letter addressed to the Commissioner whereas Exhbit-B, C, D and E are the photocopies only and the original were not produced. He stated that he did not know GC Sharma personally who was working as Commissioner. GC Sharma joined on 20.12.2004 and he could not say till which date he was working but he stated that GC Sharma was not there as Commissioner as on the date of deposition. Present Commissioner was one Prasanta Bora ACS. He stated that said GC Sharma was under suspension on the allegation of issuance of supply order to various person without departmental sanction. Even the supply order in the case in hand was issued by him without there being any claim or monetary sanction. He denied of having any personal knowledge about supply of items worth Rs. 1 crore 19 lakhs by plaintiff. He could not say to whom and what supply order GC Sharma had issued during his tenure. He denied that GC Sharma had issued supply order in official capacity and he adhered to his stand that plaintiff is not entitled to the billed amount. 9. Upon perusal of the aforesaid material on records, the learned trial court proceeded to decide the suit and heard the same on 4.6.2007. By the impugned judgment dated 15.6.2007 the learned court decided the issue No.1 in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff holding that there is cause of action for the suit. Similarly, issue No.2 about maintainability of the suit was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. By the impugned judgment dated 15.6.2007 the learned court decided the issue No.1 in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff holding that there is cause of action for the suit. Similarly, issue No.2 about maintainability of the suit was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Since there was no pleadings on the part of the defendants in regard to defect of parties, Issue No. 3 was decided in favor of the plaintiff. Issue No. 4 is the crux of the dispute between the parties. This is regarding issuance of tender notice dated 16. 8.2005. Exhibit-4 is the tender notice dated 16.8.2005 which shows that GC Sharma being Commissioner (Disability), Basistha issued the same. But since defendants claimed that it was not officially issued to and so did not produce the record, the learned trial court decided Issue No. 1 and 4 in the affirmative holding that defendant No. 2 had issued the same. 10. But coming to Issue No. 5 about submission of sealed quotation, the learned trial court found that original of the Exhbit-5 was not exhibited and there is no signature of any person on it. It is, therefore, not a reliable document and it cannot be considered to be quotation. Consequently, Issue No. 5 was decided against the plaintiff holding that plaintiff had failed to prove submission of sealed quotation. Issue No. 6 is in regard to supply order dated 29.8.2005 in regard to hearing kits, wheel chairs, TV sets and Tape Recorders. The learned trial court held that the then Commissioner (Disability) , Basistha had issued supply order Exhibit-6 and 9 to the plaintiff’s firm for supply of material in Exhibit-6 and 9. Issues No. - 7 and 8 is in regard to supply of kits to the defendant No. 2 on 14.11.2005. Both the issues were decided together. The learned trial court did not believe in Exhbit-7 and 8 which are the challans and accordingly decided Issue No. 7 and 8 in the negative and against the plaintiff thus holding that plaintiff did not make any supply. Issues No. 9 and 10 are regarding submissions of bills and issuance of cheque. According to the learned court, plaintiff prepared bills Exhibit- 8 and 11 against the materials mentioned in challan No. 7, 10, 8 and 11 which are carbon copies whereas Exhbit-8 is bill for Rs. 49,97,544. Issues No. 9 and 10 are regarding submissions of bills and issuance of cheque. According to the learned court, plaintiff prepared bills Exhibit- 8 and 11 against the materials mentioned in challan No. 7, 10, 8 and 11 which are carbon copies whereas Exhbit-8 is bill for Rs. 49,97,544. Exhibit-11 is bill for Rs.69,04,660/- Cheques Exhibit- 13 and 12 tally with these bills and so it is clear that these two cheques were issued by defendant No. 2 which the plaintiff had deposited in the bank but they were dishonoured and the same is evident from Exhibit-14 and 15. Accordingly, Issues No. 9 and 10 are decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 11 which is in regard to dishonor of the cheque was also decided in affirmative in favour of the plaintiff and then Issue No. 12 as to legal entitlement of the plaintiff was considered. While deciding this issue, the learned court held that plaintiff failed to prove that he had submitted sealed quotation for which Issue No. 5 was decided in the negative and the same is not a reliable document. Plaintiff also failed to prove supply and delivery of goods mentioned in the challan to defendant No. 2 and Paban Kalita and Issues No. 7 and 8 were also decided against the plaintiff. Moreover, the learned court held that plaintiff being not the manufacturer of the goods supplied it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove by leading evidence as to how the articles were purchased but the same was not done. Considering the totally of circumstance, Issue No. 12 was decided against the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. This judgment dated 15.6.2007 has been called in question in the present appeal. 11. I have heard Mr. AK Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AK Choudhury for the appellant. Mr. G Sharma, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondents. I have perused the materials available on record including the deposition of the witnesses and the documents adduced by them. 12. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the sole point for determination in this case would be as follows: “ Whether plaintiff succeeded to prove supply of material to the defendants ? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the billed amount? 13. 12. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the sole point for determination in this case would be as follows: “ Whether plaintiff succeeded to prove supply of material to the defendants ? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the billed amount? 13. Plaintiff proved Exhibit-4 which is tender No. 16.8.2005. It appears to have been issued by GC Sharma who is the Commissioner (Disability) Basistha, Guwahati-29. Normally, NIT are published in the newspaper or in the official gazette so as to enable maximum number of people to participate in the process. Here in this case, Exhibit-4 does not appear to have been published in any newspaper. A Sheet of paper under signature of one GC Sharma has been placed on record by plaintiff to show that sealed quotation was invited from registered firms. Question thus is bound to arise how does plaintiff get the original NIT signed by the defendant No.2. It is not proved as to whether it is issued by GC Sharma or not. Plaintiff did not examine any witness from the office of the defendants to show that the signature appearing on the body of the quotation was that of GC Sharma and that it was issued in regular course of official business. Having perused the order sheet of the trial court, it could not be found that plaintiff filed any application asking for any documents from the custody of the defendants to show that tender notice was at all issued from that office. Defendants categorically stated in the written statement and in course of evidence during the time of GC Sharma as Commissioner of Disability that there was virtually no official working in the office of the defendant No. 2. He was neither a DDO nor was he declared as head of the department. DW-1 specifically stated that there were no records in the office in regard to issuance of tender notice. It was emphatically pleaded and deposed in course of evidence that there was no monetary sanction from the Government for the purpose of purchasing any goods not to speak of Hearing Kits etc. which plaintiff claimed to have supplied . DW-1 specifically stated that there were no records in the office in regard to issuance of tender notice. It was emphatically pleaded and deposed in course of evidence that there was no monetary sanction from the Government for the purpose of purchasing any goods not to speak of Hearing Kits etc. which plaintiff claimed to have supplied . Moreover, since the alleged tender notice does not appear to have been published in any way even by pre-ponderance of probability it is difficult to accept that such a notice was at all issued by office of the l defendant No.2. Exhibit-5 appears to be an application filed by KD Enterprise for supply of the goods. The original must be lying with the authority but the same has not been called for. Plaintiff have merely placed office copy without any signature for which the learned trial court did not believe in it. In the absence of calling the original , even the office copy could not be proved as secondary evidence and so in view of non-compliance of the provision of Section 66 of the Evidence Act, this document itself became inadmissible. Exhibit-6 is yet another letter issued by same GC Sharma to the plaintiff asking for supply of the materials . The learned trial court has accepted this document saying that it was proved in original and that defendants did not lead any evidence to the contrary. Similarly, Exhibit-7 and 8 are office copies of challan and bills respectively, the original of which have not been called for. That being the position, these two documents also are inadmissible documents. Consequently, there is no material in support of the contention that plaintiff had made the supply. For same reason, Exhbits-10 and 11 become inadmissible. Plaintiff have made a specific claim that supplies were made to the defendants and that one Paban Kalita accepted the same which is counter signed by defendant No. 2. But neither this Paban Kalita nor defendant No. 2 has been produced by plaintiff to prove that such delivery of articles were at all made to the defendants. This being the position, trial court does not appear to have committed any mistake in holding that plaintiff could not prove the supply of the goods to the defendants. Exhbit-12 and 13 are the two cheques issued by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff on 22.11.2005 and 21.11.2005 respectively . This being the position, trial court does not appear to have committed any mistake in holding that plaintiff could not prove the supply of the goods to the defendants. Exhbit-12 and 13 are the two cheques issued by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff on 22.11.2005 and 21.11.2005 respectively . DW-1 stated in his evidence that the account against which these two cheques were issued is SBI account of GC Sharma. Although he has made such specific statement in course of examination in chief , but the plaintiff did not cross examine him on this point. Moreover, a bare perusal of the cheques does not show that it was issued from any Government office and so the contention of DW-1 that it was issued from the personal Saving Account of GC Sharma appears to plausible. Now the question arises as to why the cheques would be issued by GC Sharma from his personal account if the supply was made to the Government by plaintiff. This question could not be answered by plaintiff in their evidence or in their pleadings. GC Sharma must have issued tender in his personal capacity and might have released the goods from the plaintiff in personal capacity to show an apparent endevour in order to make payment. He might have issued the cheques to pacify the plaintiff. But it is not clear as to why after the cheques were dishonoured, the plaintiff did not take any action against GC Sharma in accordance with the provision of Negotiable Instrument Act. Moreover, for reasons not understood, plaintiff did not make GC Sharma as a party to the suit if he has counter signed on the challan in acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods or if he had issued supply order in his official/personal capacity and if he has issued cheques from the Personal Saving Account to pay the price of the alleged supplied goods . GC Sharma who may be personally responsible to make payment and not the Government. The defendants disclosed this aspect of the matter specifically in the written statement and even thereafter, the plaintiff did not amend the plaint and so even if said GC Sharma has done any wrong to the plaintiff which has become immune from an action because of bar under law of limitation. 14. Mr. The defendants disclosed this aspect of the matter specifically in the written statement and even thereafter, the plaintiff did not amend the plaint and so even if said GC Sharma has done any wrong to the plaintiff which has become immune from an action because of bar under law of limitation. 14. Mr. AK Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel strenuously urged that it is a fit case for passing appropriate order under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure so as to bring on record a report dated 20.6.2002 submitted by the Directorate of Financial Inspection, Assam in regard to the aforesaid false supply order. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee prima facie it appears from this document that delivery of the good was made by plaintiff to GC Sharma and delivery challan was signed by one Paban Kalita engaged by GC Sharma. This would show that GC Sharma and Paban Kalita had accepted the goods from the plaintiff. Now the question arises if this is established by allowing this document to be brought on record that GC Sharma had accepted material through Paban Kalita, in that event material available on record would not justify that such delivery was accepted by GC Sharma on behalf of State of Assam. Even if this application is allowed then there is nothing on record to hold that defendants including State of Assam can be held liable for making payment to the plaintiff as against this delivery. That being the position, the report in question does not appear to be of any help and consequently it will be futile exercise to allow this application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. It is accordingly rejected. 15. From what has been discussed above, it is seen that at best plaintiff might have succeeded to show that GC Sharma placed an order with the plaintiff for supply of certain material which plaintiff claims to have delivered accordingly but there is nothing on record to come to a finding that there was involvement of the Government of Assam in this regard. The plaintiff having claimed delivery of goods to Paban kalita could not establish the same. Plaintiff also could not establish that the articles were purchased by them from the market. The plaintiff having claimed delivery of goods to Paban kalita could not establish the same. Plaintiff also could not establish that the articles were purchased by them from the market. So it becomes a mystery as to how the materials worth rupees more than a crore was supplied by plaintiff without making any purchase and without keeping any record for making delivery at the end of the Government. End result is this the story of the plaintiff of making supply to the State of Assam is far from being established. Trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit. Accordingly, sole point for determination is answered against the appellant and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 16. No order as to cost. Send down the records immediately after framing of the decree.