( 1 ) THE petitioner by this civil revision petition is assailing the order dated 27. 1. 1994, by which the learned Additional District Judge directed the suit to be registered as an ordinary suit and declined the prayer of the petitioner for trial of the suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision petition had been admitted to hearing on 20. 3. 1995. The facts in brief are as under:

(I) The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of Kayaks and Canoes. The respondent i. e. the Department of Tourism, Government of Uttar Pradesh, had invited quotations for the supply of Kayaks and Canoes vide its notification dated 31. 12. 1990. The petitioner submitted its offer vide letter dated 3. 1. 1991. The petitioner quoted the prices and stated the terms and conditions in the offer. Some of the terms and conditions that may be noticed arc :-

ALL prices are Ex-works, Sikandrabad (U. P. ).

PRICES prevailing at the time of receipt of written order would be charged. Advance of 40% of the order value alongwith the firm, clear and acceptable order was required to be paid.

Balance 60% payment to be made within 15 days of delivery. Delivery to commence within 15 days of the receipt of Firm, clear and acceptable order accompanied with advance.

PACKING, freight and Insurance to be on the purchaser s account.

(II) The respondent in response to the petitioner s offer of 3. 1. 1991 vide its letter of 21. 1. 1991 set out its terms and conditions for supply. It prescribed inspection by the Indian Canoeing Association and furnishing of test certificate before despatch. Payment was to be subject to the test certificate being furnished. Prices F. O. R. Ballia with no freight being payable upto Ballia. Delivery to be completed by 24. 1. 1991.

(III) The petitioner on 22. 1. 1991 wrote to the respondent for withdrawal of the conditions with regard to delivery and reiterated the condition of its offer that the petitioner would commence delivery within 15 days of the receipt of firm, clear and acceptable order.

(IV) The petitioner in the meanwhile supplied 10 kakays to meet the urgent requirements and raised its bill bearing No. SKD/0233/91 dated 22. 1. 1991 for Rs. 53,054. 00. The respondent vide letter dated 28. 1. 1991 cancelled the requirement for some of the items which had earlier been intimated as being required vide its letter of 21. 1. 1991. The respondent further reiterated that the terms and conditions specified earlier in the order would be applicable.

(V) The petitioner claims to have supplied the remaining balance of , Kayaks and Canoes that had been ordered aprat from the Kayaks and Paddles, the requirement for which had been deleted in the respondent s letter of 28. 1. 1991. The petitioner raised his bill bearing No. SKD/0276/90-91 dated 23. 3. 1991.

( 2 ) IT is the petitioner s case that the defendant has wrongfully and illegally failed and neglected to pay the sum of Rs. 2,43,887. 70 being the price of the goods sold. The petitioner further claimed a sum of Rs. 1 ,39,765. 00 being the interest claiming ai the rate of 21% per annum, in all amounting to Rs. 3,83,652. 70.

( 3 ) THE petitioner on the basis of the above correspondence claimed that the correspondence with the petitioner constituted the written contract and the suit seeking to a liquidated demand/debt arising under a written contracts as above was liable to be tried under Order XXXVII Civil Procedure Code.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner during the hearing, Firstly submilled that the correspondence in the instant case amounted a written concluded contract and the suit being based on it was, therefore,for a liquidated demand in money payable by the respondent arising arising out of the written contract. Counsel for the petitioner submitted in the alternative that the suit was for the sum of a debt or liquidated demand. . based on an enactment, viz . , Section 55 of the Sale of Goods Act.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the