( 1 ) QUESTIONING the correctness of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Capatain S. M. Ansari v. Dr. Vejendla Subba Rao (1975) 2 APLJ (HC) 136 a Division Bench presided over by one of us (Bilal Nazki,j.) referred this letters patent appeal to the Full Bench.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The defendant is the appellant. On 17-9-1974 the parties entered into an agreement in terms whereof the plaintiff respondent agreed to purchase two rolling machines from the defendant for a sum of Rs. 53,000/ -. Prior thereto the plaintiff had inspected the said two rolling machines and paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each on 17-9-1974 and 28-9-1974. the defendant was required to deliver the machines upon the receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 33,000/ -. The plaintiff made an allegation to the effect that after a month he found that the machines which were inferior and worn out, were sought to be sold in place of machines which were agreed to be sold. He made his protest and asked for refund of Rs. 20,000/ -. A notice dated 8-6-1977 marked as Ex. A. 2 was issued by the plaintiff wherein the said sum of refund was claimed with interest at 12% per