JUDGMENT :

1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by defendant-State of Chhattisgarh and its functionaries assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2006 passed by learned Third Additional District Judge, Bastar in Civil Suit No. 60-B of 2004, by which the trial Court had directed the defendants to pay Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 6% from 28.01.2004 till actual payment is made.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred in terms of Civil Suit No. 60-B/2004.

3. Brief facts as mentioned in the plaint are as under that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit before the First Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur mainly contending that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and engaged in the business of supply of stationary and sports items. Plaintiff Rakesh Gupta is the partner of the firm. As per plaint averments the plaintiff had supplied goods worth of Rs. 61,464/- to defendants. The defendants to satisfy the bill amount has given two cheques dated 14.07.2002 for Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiff presented the cheque on 10.01.2001 for encashment but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement that there was no sufficient funds in the account (Ex.P-2), consequently plaintiff sent information to the defendants regarding dishonour of cheques on 22.01.2001. The plaintiff sent legal notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendant through his counsel on 08.05.2001 for releasing the payment but they did not release the payment. It has been further contended that in pursuance of the notice defendant No. 2 has forwarded memo mentioning the amount payable by them to defendant No.1 still the amount has not been paid, therefore, he has filed civil suit and prayed that decree be granted directing the defendants to pay Rs. 60,000/- along with 6% interest.

4. The defendants have filed the written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint mainly contending that the plaintiff has not supplied the material as mentioned in the plaint and it is also denied that on 06.01.2000 the defendant No.1 has ever issued any order to the plaintiff for supply the stationary items or the defendant No.2 has given any cheque to the plaintiff of Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 20,000/- on 14.07.2000. It has been further reiterated that since the plaintiff has not supplied the material and if he would have supplied the material then record must be available in the stock register of the year 2000 and would pray for dismissal of the suit.

5. The plaintiff in support of his case examined partner of the firm Rakesh Gupta as (PW-1) and Exhibited notice under section 80 CPC (Ex.P-1), Postal receipt (ExP-2), Acknowledgment (Ex.P-3), Letter issued by BEO, Farasgaon dated 06.01.2000 (Ex.P-4), Letter dated 20.06.2001 issued by BEO, Farasgaon (Ex.P-29), Cheque issued on 14.07.2000 of Rs. 20,000/- (Ex.P-5), Cheque issued on 14.04.2000 of Rs. 40,000/- (Ex.P-6), Memo of PNB dated 10.01.2001 (Ex.P-7) and receipt of goods from Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28.

6. The plaintiff has filed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC reiterating the plaint averment saying that he has supplied the material to the Block Development Officer Farasgaon valued at Rs. 61,464/-. In the cross examination he has admitted that no order has been issued in his favour for supply of material. It has stated that as per document (Ex.P-4) he was directed to supply material, which was supplied by him and additional to that order supply was demanded which he has provided and receipt has been obtained. He has also stated that he has no knowledge whether the material supplied to the defendants has been mentioned in the stock register or not. He has reiterated that for supply of goods two cheques of Rs. 20,000/- and 40,000/- have been issued on 14.07.2000, but the said cheques were not honoured and returned unpaid due to insufficient fund in the account on 10.01.2001. He has further admitted that he has filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 138 of N