JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S.C. Das, J.(Oral) This second appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated, 23.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura in Money Appeal No. 02 of 2009, where under the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura on 23.05.2009 and 04.06.2009 respectively were set aside. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Pradip Chakraborty for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. N. Majumder for the respondents. 3. This second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: "Whether for not making the State as party to the suit, while Director General of Police was made a party, the appellant/plaintiff can be nonsuited?" In course of hearing learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has prayed for formulating another substantial question of law that the reversal finding of the learned Addl. District Judge is perverse for not considering the evidence on records specially Exbt 1. Considering his submission a further substantial question of law is formulated thus: "Whether the appellate judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge suffers from perversity for not appreciating Exbt-1 i.e. the completion certificate issued by the Commanding Officer, CRPF?" 4. The case of the plaintiff in short is that she was verbally asked by the respondents to execute some work on emergency basis and she submitted quotations for 11 item of works as was asked by defendant No. 3. She was asked by the defendants to execute the work and, accordingly, she executed all the works and, thereafter,the Officer Commanding of CRPF, 94 Battalion issued A completion certificate on 11.10.2000. The works were verified and measurement was recorded and she submitted bill for an amount of Rs.3,95,008/-. Subsequently on 21.03.2001 the defendant No.2, the Superintendent of Police issued 3 work orders for execution of some particular work amounting to Rs. 1,24,517/-. That amount was paid to her but the rest amount of Rs.2,70,491/- out of the total amount of Rs.3,95,008/- was not paid and, therefore, she instituted the suit. 5. The respondents contended that the work orders were issued for execution of work valued Rs.1,24,517/-. There was no verbal instruction to execute any more work to the extent of the amount of Rs.3,95,008/and, so, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any such bill from the defendants. 5. The respondents contended that the work orders were issued for execution of work valued Rs.1,24,517/-. There was no verbal instruction to execute any more work to the extent of the amount of Rs.3,95,008/and, so, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any such bill from the defendants. It is also contended by the defendants, the respondents herein that the Commandant was not a appropriate authority to issue any completion certificate and, therefore, Exbt-1 was of no value at all. 6. The Trial Court considered the pleadings of the parties and framed four issues namely: "(I) Whether the suit is maintainable? (II) Whether the defendants issued work orders in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff performed the work? (III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree along with interest and cost as claimed in this suit? (III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief/reliefs having regard to the circumstances of the matter?" 7. In course of trial both side adduced evidence and the trial Court considering oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit. 8. Aggrieved, the defendants i.e. the respondents herein preferred Money Appeal No.02 of 2009 and by impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and thereby dismissed the suit and hence this second appeal. 9. It is emphatically submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that the State has not been made a party and that is a formal defect and for that defect the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. The plaintiff is an innocent citizen of the State and being a law abiding citizen she has executed the work under the instruction of the defendants and so the three defendants have been made parties but the State has not been made a party which may be treated as a formal defeat for which the claim of the plaintiff should not get frustrated. 10. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel of the respondents submitted that the three defendants arrayed in the pliant are all Government servants. Unless the State is made a party a Government servant in official capacity of behalf of the State cannot be made answerable to any issues in respect of the interest of State. 11. 10. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel of the respondents submitted that the three defendants arrayed in the pliant are all Government servants. Unless the State is made a party a Government servant in official capacity of behalf of the State cannot be made answerable to any issues in respect of the interest of State. 11. Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes that in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as a plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, shall be in the case of a suit by or against the State Government the State. While the plaintiff sought relief in respect of a decree of money from the exchequer of the Government i.e. of the State, the State ought to have been made a party being a necessary party. Here we cannot say that the State is a formal party and non-impleadment of the State will not vitiate the suit constituted by the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the public servants. If they were personally made parties in the Suit the matter ought to have been other wise. Those defendants have been arrayed in their official capacity as Government servants. While the State has not been made a party in accordance with law, no effective decree can be passed against those defendants which will have ultimate effect on the State. Therefore in my considered opinion the Appellate Court was right to arrive at a conclusion that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of the State Government as a party to the Suit. 12. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel further submitted that it is known to all that in case of emergency the authorities in the higher-ups of the Police Department ask their recognised contractors to execute urgent works to meet an emergency situation and here in this case also the same thing happened. The plaintiff under the oral instruction of the defendants submitted quotation and under further oral instruction executed the work as per the quotation. Later on only three work orders were issued amounting to Rs.1,24,517/but the rest amount for the execution of the rest work has not been paid though the plaintiff had executed the work. 13. Burden absolutely lies on the plaintiff to prove her case. Later on only three work orders were issued amounting to Rs.1,24,517/but the rest amount for the execution of the rest work has not been paid though the plaintiff had executed the work. 13. Burden absolutely lies on the plaintiff to prove her case. It is the plaintiff to show that she had executed all those 11 items of works as stated in para 2 of the plaint. As I find in para-2 of the plaint the plaintiff simply stated the name of the work for which she has submitted her quotations. No copy of the detailed quotation of the particular work submitted by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that she executed all those work valued Rs.3,95,008/-. No copy of the bill produced before the Trial Court. Had the plaintiff not retained the copy of the bill she would ask the Court to call for the records of the bill from the Office of the defendants, if at all there was any such bill submitted. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the measurement of the works were recorded in the measurement book but no such measurement book also produced before the Court. In the absence of any such document it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff actually executed the work worth Rs.3,95,008/-. The plaintiff brought on record three work orders which are admitted by the defendants and those three work orders valued Rs.1, 24, 517/- and that amount has been paid to the plaintiff. The payment of that amount in respect of those three works for which work orders were issued does not necessarily prove the fact that the plaintiff executed rest of the works as claimed by her. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove that she executed the rest of the work, the Court cannot decree that part of her claim with a direction to the defendants to pay the amount. It is also clear from the record that the Commandant of the 94 Battalion, CRPF was none to the execution of the works. It was a contract orally or in writing between the plaintiff and the defendants and not between the plaintiff, defendants and Commandant of 94 Battalion, CRPF. So, the Commandant of 94 Battalion, CRPF has no authority even if he issued certificate which is annexed as Exbt 1 is of no evidential value. 14. It was a contract orally or in writing between the plaintiff and the defendants and not between the plaintiff, defendants and Commandant of 94 Battalion, CRPF. So, the Commandant of 94 Battalion, CRPF has no authority even if he issued certificate which is annexed as Exbt 1 is of no evidential value. 14. In view of the discussions made above I find no merit in the second appeal and hence the second appeal stands dismissed but in the facts of the case no order as to costs. 15. Send back the LC records along with a copy of this Appeal dismissed.