( 1 ) APPELLANT a registered partnership firm having lost in the trial Court has come in appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/06/1975 passed in Civil Suit No. 2321 of 1974 by the City Civil Court Ahmedabad Respondent-bank is the original defendant.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions a few facts will need to be stated. Appellant had opened a pledge account with the respondent. Pledged bales of cloth belonging to the appellant were kept in a godown which belonged to the appellant but which was under the direct control and supervision of the respondent pursuant to the pledge agreement between the parties. The said godown was therefore operated by. the respondent whenever needed in the presence of the agent of the appellant with the keys which remained in possession and safe custody of the respondent. On 17/04/1974 appellants agent went to take delivery of 2 bales along with the godown keeper of the respondent. It was then noticed that there were only 66 bales instead of 70 bales. As the appellant felt that the respondent was liable in respect of 4 missing bales a registered notice dated 25/04/1974 was served on the respondent calling upon them to return the 4 missing bales or alternatively Rs. 17 600 being the price of the bales together with the difference of price at the prevalent rate in other words; profit. 12 per cent per annum. According to the appellant the market price of the said bales at the relevant time was Rs. 211249. 55. The total claim made in the suit inclusive of interest and notice charges was of Rs. 22 255. 55 The suit was tried on merits and was ultimately dismissed with no order as to costs.

( 3 ) IN the present appeal appellant contends in the first place that it was due to the negligence of the respondent-bailee that the said loss had occurred. It is an admitted position that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was that of a bailor and a bailee. Respondent had examined one Keki Hormashji at Exhibit 50 at the trail. Since 1/10/1973 this witness was an officer in the Cash Credit Department in Maskati Market Branch of the respondent. This witness has described the procedure that was followed regarding operation of godown such as the one in question. In his cross-examination an attempt was made to show that there was scope for a godown keeper to play mischief. Regarding procedure this witness has stoutly maintained that the proper procedure was followed and due care was taken in parting with the keys of the godown for operation.

( 4 ) ANOTHER witness examined by the respondent was Dahyabhai Maneklal Parekh Exhibit 59. This witness was serving as an agent at aforesaid branch of the respondent since a year before the incident. He has deposed that a regular complaint was filed before the police on 19/04/1974 that they had permitted the appellant to keep the goods in the appellants godown which was taken on lease that the police had visited the godown twice that on the second occasion demonstration was made as to how the door could be opened without operating the lock that it was shown that a man could enter and come out from the said godown and could pass the goods after breaking open the bales and that the police had informed them that nothing further could be done in the complaint. An attempt was made in the course of examination of this witness also to show that it was possible for the godown keeper to play mischief. An attempt was also made to show that there was laxity in carrying out inspection of the godown. The said agent has deposed in cross-examination that the respondent was bound to take care of the goods as a bailee and their had taken such care and further that it was difficult to say that as to what had actually happened to the aforesaid 4 bales. As nothing turns on the evidence of other witnesses examined at the trial on the point under consideration it is not necessary to dwell upon the same.

( 5 ) THE evidence led at the trial doe