JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:-Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri Dhote, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, states that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of price of goods sold by the appellant to the respondents/defendants. The appellant is manufacture of super enamelled copper wire. The respondent No. 2 invited tenders for supply of copper wire. The appellant's offer was accepted and order was placed. As per agreement between parties, goods were to be despatched by train and documents were to be submitted through bank. It is contended that 95% of the price was to be paid while getting documents realised from the bank and 5% amount was to be paid within thirty days on inspection of goods. It is submitted that appellant supplied goods worth Rs. 88,93,704.06 and as against that, defendants made payment of Rs. 83,16,145.15 and balance amount of Rs. 5,77,558.91 remained to be paid to the appellant by the respondents. It is contended that inspite of repeated reminders to the respondents, they failed to pay the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document