JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff, wherein, it, seeks recovery of Rupees one crore, along with interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the suit, uptill realization of the claim, (i) claim whereof is embedded in the defendants, rather, wanting in making the apposite supplies vis-à-vis the plaintiff(s), (ii) thereupon the latter being hence rendered disabled, to commission a new plant, besides it being deterred to market better quality glazed papers, (iii) wherefrom, the plaintiff would have secured a remunerative price higher than the one which it fetched, from, the market, vis-à-vis the paper manufactured by it. 2. The plaintiff has averred in his plaint that Mr. S.K. Aggarwal has been duly authorized vide Board resolution to file, institute, sign, swear affidavit, to take any action for recovery of money/damages, to, file and to file this case, prosecute and to engage counsels. Vide order No. CPW 373:00-01 of 6.7.2000, the defendants made an offer for manufacturing, of M/s frames fabricated weighing approximately 10 to 11 tones @ Rs. 28/- per KG ex-works. The defendants had agreed to deliver the said MS frames fabricated, by the end of September, 2000, and, 30% advance payment was asked for. The plaintiff, vide acceptance letter dated 10.7.2000, accepted the said offer made by the defendants, for, manufacturing the MS frame fabricated. It was submitted in the acceptance offer that workmanship and the dimensions should, be as per the drawings supplied, by the plaintiff, and, any error or discrepancy would be rectified by the defendants. A cheque was also given to the defendants amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, as advance for execution of the work order. On the basis of acceptance of offer of the plaintiffs, the defendants started execution of work qua offer of 6.7.2000. The plaintiffs constantly asked the defendants to supply them with the MS frame fabricated, but the defendants tried to evade the issue. Thereafter, vide letter of 16.9.2002, the drawings for MS frame fabricated were again sent to the defendants, for quick execution of the work qua MS frames fabrication, however, the defendants did nothing, rather the defendants refused to entertain any visits or calls made by the plaintiff. On 28.5.2005, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff, that, they have started the work of item Nos. On 28.5.2005, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff, that, they have started the work of item Nos. 2, 3 and 4, as shown in letter dated 28.5.2005, however, nothing was done, and, on 27.9.2005, another letter was issued by the defendants, wherein the defendants started raising baseless issues in order to avoid the job assigned to them for supplying of MS Frames. The defendants raised the immaterial issue that the plaintiff should not insist for machining. Again on 8.11.2005, the defendants wrote letter to the plaintiff, wherein, they still raised the issue of machining, whereas the plaintiff at the time of his accepting the offer, made on 6.7.2000, and had clearly submitted that they wanted finishing of the parts as per the drawing. On 25.1.2006, a meeting was held between the authorized representatives of the plaintiff and of the defendants in minutes of meeting, wherein it was specifically brought out that in respect of drawing No.PM, 2/06/272, PM-2/06/224 and PM-2/06/225, the drawings would be positively, got ready, by 30th January and, the material can be lifted by 1.2.2006, and, in respect of drawing No. PM-2/06/229, the said work would be completed by 15th of March, 2006, however, defendants failed to honour the aforesaid commitment and the plaintiff have no other option but to fax a message on 1.2.2006, regarding non-fulfillment of the commitment as per the minutes of the meeting. Further a letter on 9.2.2006 was also issued to the defendants requesting it to complete all the jobs assigned to them. The defendants on 18.2.2006, in total breach of minutes of meeting, sent the material as per the drawings No.PM-2/06/272, PM-2/06/224 and PM-2/06/225. The defendants were guilty, of not, adhering to the schedule wherewithin the job had to be completed, and, also violated the minutes of meeting. Thereafter again on 29.4.2006, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant that only material qua drawing No. PM-2/06/272, PM-2/06/224 and PM-2/06/225 have been received, but material qua drawing No. PM 2-06/229 , SH 1, 2 and 3 had not been received. It was further pointed out that new project has been held up and financial losses are being suffered as a result of breach of contract in not supplying MS Frame. The defendants were asked to make good the losses. The defendants on 1.5.2006 assured that the material will be delivered by the end of May 2006. It was further pointed out that new project has been held up and financial losses are being suffered as a result of breach of contract in not supplying MS Frame. The defendants were asked to make good the losses. The defendants on 1.5.2006 assured that the material will be delivered by the end of May 2006. The defendants were to provide MS Frame (Fabricated) on which the calander rolls had to be placed which would have improved the quality of the paper by smoothening, glazing and shining. It is further averred in the plaint that the time was the essence of the contract and, the defendants failing to adhere to the time schedule. It is further averred of plaintiff sufferring loss and damages, as, it could not commission the new plant, and, also put in the market better quality glazed paper, fetching more price(s). It is further averred that the defendants are liable to damages for non delivery of MS (Frame) fabricated i.e. goods, hence prayed for rendition of decree of Rupees one Crore along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing, of the suit till payment is made. 3. The suit of the plaintiff, is contested by the defendants, by instituting written statement, to the plaint of the plaintiff. By way of written statement, the defendants, submit, that the defendant was made an offer, for fabrication of press frames parts of 5/6 metric tons @ Rs. 28/- per Kg, on the terms that the excise duties will be charged Nil at the time of delivery, and SCT @ 4% will be charged against submission of Form-C for availing concessional Tax as per Standard Trade Practices. It is averred that it is, nowhere mentioned, in the acceptance letter of 10.7.2000, that the quantity would be 10 to 11 tons, and, the acceptance letter is silent, about the finished material and machining. The plaintiff had to supply the remaining drawings, as stated in the letter of 10.7.2000, but failed to do so. The plaintiff has suppressed the fact that vide fax message/letter, of 10.8.2000, the plaintiff himself wrote to the defendants qua the drawings submitted vide letter of 10.7.2000, being cancelled, and, requested/instructed that, the defendants may not start work till the fresh drawings of press frames part and, dispatched/sent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has suppressed the fact that vide fax message/letter, of 10.8.2000, the plaintiff himself wrote to the defendants qua the drawings submitted vide letter of 10.7.2000, being cancelled, and, requested/instructed that, the defendants may not start work till the fresh drawings of press frames part and, dispatched/sent to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff did not submit the drawings to the defendants, from 16.7.2000 till 16.9.2002, and, the fact of the matter, is that the plaintiff himself slept over the matter. It is further averred that vide letter of 10.8.2000, the plaintiff had requested the defendants, not, to start the work till fresh drawings of press frames parts, are submitted to the defendants, whereas the defendants had already started fabrication work, asked by the plaintiff regarding fixation of gun metal bush or MS Bush. The defendant requested the plaintiff, to, inform the defendants, so as to enable, the defendants to proceed with the work. On 16.9.2002, the plaintiff sent some drawings, for fabrication work, to the defendant, and, the defendant, on 9.10.2002 wrote to the defendant, that the defendant would supply the material at the old rate of Rs. 28/- per KG upto the value of Rs. 3,00,000/- It is further contended in the written statement, that, the plaintiff himself had not submitted the drawings to the defendant for a period of about 5 years. The plaintiff did not, despite several communications, reply to the query raised by the defendants. The defendants submits that the plaintiff admits that from 6.7.2000 till 28.5.2005, the plaintiff did not care to, ask the defendant, as to whether, the work so entrusted was completed or not and even otherwise, the clarifications regarding the discrepancies, of the drawings, was not made available by the plaintiff. Defendants were time and again writing, and representing, to the plaintiff regarding discrepancies in the fresh drawings submitted on 16.9.2002 by the plaintiffs, and, requested the plaintiff to clarify the discrepancies or depute someone who could clarify the technicalities of the drawings. It was only the defendants, who, deputed his representatives to visit the plaintiff’s factory, however on visiting the plaintiff’s factory, it was found that there was no trained staff in the plaintiff’s factory, and, there was no one who could assemble the second hand imported machinery, which the plaintiff had purchased, for construction of the factory. It was only the defendants, who, deputed his representatives to visit the plaintiff’s factory, however on visiting the plaintiff’s factory, it was found that there was no trained staff in the plaintiff’s factory, and, there was no one who could assemble the second hand imported machinery, which the plaintiff had purchased, for construction of the factory. It was informed, to, the defendants’ representative that there was no expert or qualified engineer, who could clarify the technicalities of drawings. The defendant on 3.8.2005, wrote, to the plaintiff that in terms of the earlier letter dated 19.5.2005, no inspection engineer has inspected the ready material till date, and, as such requested the plaintiff to depute their Inspector to inspect the ready material. The defendants, on 16.9.2005, again wrote to the plaintiff that none from the side of the plaintiff had inspected the ready material. The plaintiff on 17.8.2005, deputed his representative for inspection. Surprisingly, the plaintiff raised one new issue, and, stated that the press frames fabricated by the defendants should be machined, which, was neither offered nor accepted in the order. However, on 8.11.2005, the defendant clarified that the machining work would be done as per the plaintiff’s drawings, and costs thereof would be paid by the plaintiff. 4. On 25.1.2006, a new settlement/agreement /order/understanding, was entered, between the plaintiff and the defendants, with an understanding, that, the first lot of material approximately two metric ton would be ready by 30th of January, 2006, and the plaintiff would lift the material by 1st of February, 2006. The balance approximately 4 metric ton would be fabricated, after the lifting of the first lot, by the plaintiff, and, would be completed by the 15th of March, 2006. Even when the defendant sent their proforma invoice of ready material to the plaintiff for enabling them to make the payment qua stock ready for lifting, yet the plaintiff did not make the payment and rather requested the defendant that the payment would be made, after receipt, of material, at the factory site of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not make the payment despite several requests. Despite that, the defendant delivered the finished goods as ordered by the plaintiff. It is further averred that the defendants had violated the terms and conditions, on the basis of the offer of the defendants, of 6.7.2000. The plaintiff did not make the payment despite several requests. Despite that, the defendant delivered the finished goods as ordered by the plaintiff. It is further averred that the defendants had violated the terms and conditions, on the basis of the offer of the defendants, of 6.7.2000. The defendants and the plaintiff entered into a fresh understanding on 25.1.2006, and, the plaintiff did not fulfill the terms and conditions thereof. It is averred that there is no violation of terms and conditions of order, on behalf of the defendants, and, they are not liable for the any loss and damages, as claimed by the plaintiff. 5. The claim set up by the defendants is refuted by the plaintiff by filing rejoinder to the written statement of the defendants. 6. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed on 2.4.2008: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of filing till payment? OPP 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4. Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not filed by authorized and competent person? OPD 6. Whether the suit is neither competent nor maintainable on account of suit lacking complete, true and correct facts and particulars’ if so its effect? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit on account of his act and conduct? OPD 8. Relief. 7. For the reasons to be recorded hearinafter, my findings on the aforesaid issues, are as under: Issue No. 1 Partly yes. Issue No. 2. No Issue No. 3 No Issue No. 4 Yes Issue No. 5 No Issue No. 6 Yes Issue No. 7 No Relief The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. Reasons for findings Issue No. 1 and 2 8. In proof of the averments cast in the plaint, one S.K. Aggarwal, the authrorized representative of the plaintiff Company, stepped into the witness box. During the course, of, his examination-in-chief, he tendered Ext. P-1, exhibit whereof, embodies the minutes, of, meeting of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff-Company, whereby he stands authorized to sign, file, verify all documents, pleading, application, affidavits etc., and, to depose as witness in Courts of law. Ext. During the course, of, his examination-in-chief, he tendered Ext. P-1, exhibit whereof, embodies the minutes, of, meeting of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff-Company, whereby he stands authorized to sign, file, verify all documents, pleading, application, affidavits etc., and, to depose as witness in Courts of law. Ext. P-2 comprises the offer made by the plaintiff, to the defendants, for fabricating MS frames, with theirs hence carrying the weights mentioned therein, besides at the rate(s) enunciated therein. The contents of Ext. P-2 are admitted by the parties at contest. However, though subsequent thereto, certain communication(s) embodied in Ext. P-3, in Ext. P-4, in Ext. P-5 and in Ext. P-6, also occurred interse the plaintiff, and, the defendant, and, communication(s) whereof, appertain to the year 2000, (a) communications whereof are relied upon by the plaintiff, especially, for sustaining its espousal, of despite, the plaintiff making repeated, persistent reminders, upon, the defendants, to make the relevant supplies, yet the latter omitting to mete apposite compliance(s) therewith. (b) However, the effect of communication(s) if any, made interse the plaintiff, and, the defendants, rather are stripped of their probative vigour, given PW-1, during the course of his cross-examination, while meteing reply(s) to Court query(s), his making vivid disclosure(s) therein, of, ( c) only on 28.5.2005, the plaintiff, establishing the relevant contact with, the defendants, and prior thereto, the plaintiff establishing telephonic contact(s), vis-à-vis the defendants, with respect to the execution of the apposite orders. (d) However, even the factum of, prior to 28.5.2005, the plaintiff purportedly maintaining telephonic communication(s), with the defendants, for hence beseeching the latter to execute, the orders placed upon it, by the plaintiff, is not credible, (e) given PW-1 not placing on record the apposite telephone bills or any other befitting documentary evidence, in respect of the plaintiff, prior to 28.5.2005, hence establishing telephonic contact, with the defendants, whereupon the latter were requested, to execute the orders placed upon it, by the plaintiff. The aforesaid inference also enhances a further inference, of, (f) the plaintiff derelicting, since the year 2000, to 28.5.2005, for ensuring, qua the defendants’ executing the relevant orders, hence a further concomitant inference is engendered, of, time being not the essence of the contract. 9. Be that as it may, dehors the aforesaid inference(s), the existence on record, of Ext. The aforesaid inference also enhances a further inference, of, (f) the plaintiff derelicting, since the year 2000, to 28.5.2005, for ensuring, qua the defendants’ executing the relevant orders, hence a further concomitant inference is engendered, of, time being not the essence of the contract. 9. Be that as it may, dehors the aforesaid inference(s), the existence on record, of Ext. P-8, exhibit whereof, comprises, a communication made by the defendants, vis-à-vis the plaintiff, and, its circumspect reading, unveiling, of, the defendants proceeding to execute the work orders, in respect of certain items, and, theirs assuring early execution, of unexecuted items, only after, hence inspection, being done, of the completed items, (a) yet the communication(s) borne, in Ext. P-8, appear to, as divulged by Ext. P-9 and Ext. P-10, Ext. P-11 and Ext. P-12, rather remained unheeded, (b) whereupon an inference is erectable of rather derelictions hence emanating, on the part of the plaintiff, even despite the defendants’ executing part of the orders, and, after their inspections’ by the plaintiff, theirs assuring delivery(s) thereof, vis-à-vis the plaintiffs, and, theirs also assuring qua thereafter theirs completing the execution, of unexecuted work(s). 10. Contrarily, as divulged by Ext. P-10, and, by Ext. P-11, the plaintiff, rather made insistence(s), upon, the defendants, to make finished machining, despite, the insistence aforesaid, being beyond the scope of contract, and, being also technically unfeasible, (a) yet the defendants enjoined upon the plaintiff to supply vis-à-vis them, the apposite drawings, for hence enabling them, to completely execute the finished machining. Further more, it appears that even though under Ext. P-3, the relevant drawings were purveyed, by the plaintiff, to the defendants, (b) however, through Ext. P-15 and Ext. P-16, the counsel for the plaintiff, has strived, to raise a contention, of the defendants not facilitating the lifting of the ready material, appertaining to drawings No. DM-2/06/222, DM-2/06/224 and DM-2/06/225, (c) yet, effect thereof, is effaced by Annexure P-14, exhibit whereof is signed by the authorized representatives, of the parties at contest, wherein, a graphic disclosure occurs, of the readiness of the defendants, to get the requisite material/items, ready on 30.1.2006, (d) and, it also carries recitals’ of, the remaining material, being put to manufacture, only after, the lifting(s) of the initially manufactured lot, (e) besides an assurance is meted therein, of the entire work being completed by 15.3.2005. Subsequent thereto, the defendant dispatched, a tempo containing 6 pieces of Leavers Ex-Yamuna Nagar, to Kala-Amb, wherewith the following documents were also dispatched: a. Invoice No. 92/E/05-06, dated 18.2.2006 for Rs. 47173, against supply of above material; b. Packing List No. 65/E/05-06, dated 17.2.2006 c. G.R. No. 4055, dated 17.02.2006 of M/s Raj Laxmi Transport Company. d. Delivery Challan Cum Invoice No. 00119, dated 17.2.2006. 11. Consequently, it is apparent that under Annexure P-6, the defendants had meted compliance with the recital(s) borne in Ext. P-14. Since, for the reasons aforesaid, time was not essence of the contract, and, with the plaintiff, as apparent, from the recorded signatured minutes of an apposite meeting, rather displaying acquiescing(s), besides permitting, the defendants to complete the fabrication of items, (a) thereupon it is befitting to infer of the plaintiff, condoning, the apposite delay, hence it being not open for the plaintiffs to contend, that on account of any purported delay(s), purportedly, ascribable to the defendants, any pecuniary loss or damage(s), rather being visited upon the plaintiff. Though, it is averred in the plaint, that, if the requisite items were fabricated within time, by the defendants, thereupon the plaintiff would be facilitated, to commission its new plant, and, would also be enabled to, hence ensure production of superior quality glazed papers, and, thereafter would be assured to fetch higher remunerative price(s) vis-à-vis the finished product, than, the price hitherto fetched by it, purportedly in respect of inferior quality paper. However, in respect thereto, there is no firm testification, nor any firm documentary cogent evidence stand adduced, evidence whereof may be comprised, in the books of accounts, maintained by the plaintiff, with vivid portrayals therein, qua the plaintiff continuing, to manufacture paper, at its old plant, (b) and, with further portrayal(s) therein, that since the year 2000, whereat the apposite order, was placed by the plaintiff upon the defendants, up to the year 2006, the plaintiff, for want of delivery of apposite fabrication(s), by the defendants, being hence precluded, to commission its new plant, thereupon pecuniary damages, for purported dereliction(s) or purported non-compliance(s) by the defendants comprised, in theirs not fabricating the items, being hence entailed upon the defendants. Also, the plaintiff omitted, to adduce photographic evidence, pointedly appertaining to the year 2001 to 2006, with specific delineation therein, of the plaintiff, for want of apposite fabrications, by the defendants, rather being hence precluded to commission, its new plant, rather the plaintiff manufacturing paper, at its old plant. Since the aforesaid, comprised the best documentary evidence, yet it has been visibly suppressed, thereupon the plaintiff’s contention, of theirs, for, non-supply of the apposite items, within time, (a) being precluded to commission its new plant, b), and, of theirs being precluded, to fetch higher remunerative price, vis-a-vis the finished product, than, the hitherto price fetched by it, (c) conspicuously also when only, from the aforesaid suppressed material, disclosures would occur qua the plaintiff manufacturing glazed or unglazed paper, is thereupon omnibusly blunted, (d) The further inference, which is engendered therefrom, is of the plaintiff also failing to prove the apposite derelictions or non-compliance(s), by the defendants, nor any pecuniary damages as claimed against the defendants, being amenable to be decreed Since, the defendants in his cross-examination, accepted his receiving a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as an advance payment, and, has also deposed that Rs. 47,000/- is the outstanding balance, yet has deposed that material worth therewith, has been purchased. (e) Nonetheless, when he has not produced any evidence vis-à-vis materials being purchased, from, the aforesaid outstanding amount, thereupon it is befitting, to decree the plaintiff’s suit only vis-à-vis a sum of Rs. 47,000 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, up to its realization, being hence defrayable by the plaintiffs, vis-à-vis the defendants. 12. Consequently, issues No. 1 and 7 are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Issues No. 3, 5 and 7 13. It has not been shown by the defendants as to how the suit is barred by time and as to how the suit is not filed by authorized person and as to how the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit on account of his act and conduct, hence for want of evidence in regard aforesaid, issues No. 3, 5 and 7 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issues No. 4 and 6 14. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, neither the plaintiff can maintain the instant suit nor he has any cause of action to file the instant suit. Issues No. 4 and 6 14. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, neither the plaintiff can maintain the instant suit nor he has any cause of action to file the instant suit. Consequently, both these issues are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Relief 15. In sequel to findings on issues aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed, vis-à-vis a sum of Rs. 47,000 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of suit, up to its realization. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.