Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the trial Court dated 30.1.2003 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 4,99,500/-with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of monies against the appellants/defendants for having supplied a total of 417 numbers of Golden Rocker Sprayers and 100 numbers of knapsack sprayers. The respondent/plaintiff is a manufacturer and supplier of Agriculture, Anit-Malaria and other pest control sprayers and spare parts. Originally, the order which the respondent/plaintiff claimed was placed upon it on 3.12.1999, was for 300 golden rocker sprayers 100 numbers of knapsack sprayers, however, subsequently the quantity of Golden Rocker Sprayers was increased to 400 numbers vide telegram dated 27.12.1999 which was said to have been sent by the appellants/defendants and thereafter to 417 numbers. The respondent/plaintiff claimed that a total amount of Rs. 8,48,053/-became due from the appellants/defendants and for which the bill bearing No.1558 dated 28.12.1999 was sent to the appellants/defendants. The appellants/defendants paid a sum of Rs. 4 lacs, leaving a balance of Rs. 4, 48,053/-and for recovery of which the subject suit was filed.

3. The appellant No.1/defendant, M/s. Kerala Agro Industries, Corporation Ltd., a Kerala State Government undertaking, contested the suit and the basic point of defence was that out of the total sprayers supplied, the representative of the respondent/plaintiff one Mr. M.A. Jose had taken back 195 numbers of rocker sprayers and 45 numbers of knapsack sprayers and therefore unless credit is given for these sprayers having taken back, no payment could be made. In fact, considering that out of the total bill of Rs. 8,48,053/-, a sum of Rs. 4 lacs was already paid, it was urged before this Court that a very negligent amount if at all would remain due to the respondent/plaintiff once the value for 195 numbers of Golden Rocker Sprayers and 45 numbers of knapsack sprayers is reduced from the claim of the respondent/plaintiff.

4. The main issue which was argued before the trial Court was with respect to whether Mr. M.A. Jose was the agent of the respondent/plaintiff and whether he had received back 195 numbers of Golden Rocker Sprayers and 45 numbers of knapsack sprayers from the appellants/defendants. The relevant issue, in this regard, which was framed by the trial Court was modified as issue No.3 which reads as under:-

"MODIFIED ISSUE NO.3

"Whether Sh. M.A. Jose was authorized by the plaintiff to collect sprayers back from the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff and the said goods were returned by the defendant to him as alleged in the Written Statement' If so, to what effect. OPD"

5. The trial Court has held that Mr. M.A. Jose was not the agent of the respondent/plaintiff for receiving back of the goods. It is also held that Mr. M.A. Jose acted in excess of authority in receiving back the goods and therefore the respondent/plaintiff was not liable. The relevant observations, made by the trial Court, in this regard read as under:-

"Perusal of the telegram Ex.P.4 shows that if has been sent by Mr. S.C. Bose i.e. DW.1 Divisional Engineer of the defendant company. The said telegram is not sent by Mr. Jose as is being claimed by the defendants. So it is proved that the goods in question were sent by the plaintiff to the defendants in pursuance of the order Ex.P.3 followed by enhanced order vide telegram Ex.P.4 dated 27.12.1998. As already mentioned above receipts of goods as mentioned as mentioned in the Bill Ex.DW.1/p.1 is not disputed by the defendants in any manner whatsoever. However, the plea of the defendants is that they had placed an order for supply of 300 Rocker Sprayers and 100 Knapsack Sprayers 9 litre capacity, but the plaintiff sent