Reading these applications together with the form of the agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs, there is numberdoubt that the plaintiffs pleaded that the companytract was for sale of paddy by them to the Government of Bihar and that they were number acting as purchasing agents for and on behalf of the Government of Bihar.
The learned Trial Judge accepted the statement of Ram Kumar Sikseria that the plaintiffs were purchasing agents for the Government of Bihar.
A list of 308 purchasing agents was maintained by the Government for procuring paddy But admittedly the plaintiffs were number included in that list of purchasing agents.
The original companytract which was by law required to be reduced to writing and to be executed in the manner required by Section 175 3 of the Government of India Act is number before the Court.
The companyy which according to the plaintiffs represented the form of the companytract does number support the plaintiffs case.
CPC it was recited that the plaintiffs required the Government of Bihar to admit Facts respectively specified in the application, and one of the facts so specified was that there was a companytract dated August 17, 1946 between the State of Bihar and R. B. H. M. Jute Mills to supply rice and paddy.
The learned Trial Judge referred to Ext.
In the view of the learned Trial Judge the inference arising from the Register was companyroborated by Ext.
They also served interrogatives calling upon the State to admit the existence of the companytracts dated August 17,1946.
But there is numberaverment in the plaint that the plaintiffs were purchasing agents of the State.
There was numberexpress denial of that averment by the State.
In another numberice to a limit facts under Order 12, Rule 5.
The plaintiffs in their plaint have number asserted that they were purchasing agents for and on behalf of the Government of Bihar and the only evidence in support of the plaintiffs case is that of Ram kumar Sakseria.
79 and 127 of Ext.
8 which disclosed that advances were sometimes made in excess of the supplies and they had to be adjusted at the time of final accounting.
Several applications were filed in the trial Court by the plaintiffs calling upon the Government of Bihar to admit certain documents, to admit certain facts, to produce certain documents and to answer interrogatories.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs were vendors who had supplied goods to the State of Bihar.
An application for an order directing production of certain documents from the custody of the Government of Bihar was also submitted, one of the document of which product ion was demanded was Office companyy of the Contract dated August 17, 1946, and with that application the plaintiff filed, a companyy of the form of the Agreement in which the companytract was executed.
The plaintiffs made several applications for orders directing the State to produce the agreement relating to the companytracts which they claimed were in the possession of the State.
The plaintiffs case at the trial was that there was a companytract in writing which was duly executed in the manner provided by Section 175 of the Government of India Act.
The High Court was of the view that the plaintiff had asserted the existence of the companytracts and the defendant had number denied that averment by their written statement.
The form of the agreement clearly indicates that it was an agreement to purchase paddy and number an agreement by the plaintiffs as purchasing agents of paddy on behalf of the Government.
The State has appealed to this Court, with certificate granted by the High Court.
On June 16, 1954 the plaintiffs served a numberice under Order 12, Rule 3 CPC intimating that they proposed to adduce in evidence the documents specified and filed in the Court as perlist companyy whereof was serve I upon the Government of Bihar.
The first item in the list of documents called for was Office companyy of the companytract dated August 17, 1946.
Two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the claims may first be companysidered 1 that there was numbercontract executed on behalf of the Governor, and by a person authorised in that behalf as prescribed by Section 175 3 of the Government of India Act 1935 and on that account the suit was number maintainable.
In the interrogatories administered by the plaintiffs on August 20, 1954, the first interrogatory was Did number the Regional Grain Supply Officer, Purnea made companytracts with parties in Purnea as purchasing agents for supply of rice and paddy both Nepal and local to Government of Bihar between the years 1946 and 1948 If so with whom name the parties ?.
The plaintiffs have claimed in paragraph 4 of their plaint certain charges for companymission and also referred to a barter scheme under which they were to sell cloth.
Shah, J. Messrs. R. B. Motilal Chamaria companymenced an action in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Purnea for a decree against the State of Bihar for Rs.
Other persons may have been paid storage charges but that does number enable the plaintiffs to claim that amount in the absence of any such companytract between them and the State.
/2/ per maund for storage for les than 6 months and /4/ per mauni for storage ior 6 months and above.
Clause 1 of the form of agreement recites Whereas the first party the plaintiffs has agreed to sell and supply to the Government of Bihar, hereinafter called the Government foodgrains of various kinds on the basis of offers made by the second party from time to time, subject to the terms and companyditions specified hereunder.
Original was sent to R.G.S.O. on August 17, 1946.
11 srs.
of paddy at the rate of Rs.
Against the decree passed by the Trial Court the State as well as the plaintiffs appealed.
The dispute in these appeals only relates to items A to D decreed by the High Court.
At the trial of the suit Ram Kumar Sakseria asserted that the plaintiffs were appointed in August 1946 purchasing agents under the Government for supply of 1,00,000 maunds of paddy to the Regional Food Grains Supply Officer and that the companytract was made in August 19 46 though the supply had started earlier in June 1946 as directed.
8 a register known as Personal Ledger Accounts for Agents maintained in the officer of the Regional Grain Supply Officer, which showed that the plaintiffs were treated as agents by the Government for the transactions in question and upon the plaintiffs accounts of purchases and supply maintained at pp.
Counsel for the plaintiffs relied in support of the case of the plaintiffs that the were purchasing agents on the memorandum dated October 10, 1950 from the Secretary, Supply and Price Control Department, Bihar, Patna to the District Magistrate, Purnea in the case of B. Bhattacharjee, Purchasing Agent, Kishanganj.
The low rate which came into force subsequently under order of Government was allowed to this party.
