Prakash Chandra Verma, J.

1. This appeal on behalf of the Appellant has been pressed only on one ground that the trial court has erred in relying on agreement, Ext.1, and holding that liability for payment to the Plaintiff Respondent was at the rate of 10 paise their rate has not been approved and the said agreement was not approved by the competent authority. It is submitted that perusal of the same shows that the agreement was for 10 paise per quintal to carry sugar from one place to another place. The aforesaid agreement was not approved by the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, which was condition required in the tender of the notice.

2. I have gone through the judgment passed by the trial court. The trial court has dealt with the issues in detail and has recorded a finding that the work under the contract was completed within the stipulated period of the Plaintiff carried out the work after issue of work order on the basis of agreement executed between the parties contained in Ext.1. The dispute was raised after the work was completed and when the payment was to be made.

3. The fact of the appeal is that the Plaintiff was appointed as an ad hoc handling and