D. P. BUCH, J. - The appellant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, incorporated under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, has preferred this First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24th September, 1979 under which the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Court No. 12, dismissed the suit of the present appellant with costs.

The facts my be briefly stated as follows :

The appellant, a Corporation incorporated under the aforesaid Act of 1950, instituted a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 1429 of 1975 for the recovery of Rs. 11,625 with interest at 6% per annum of cost of the suit from the respondents abovenamed. It may be stated at the outset that the first respondent is a registered partnership firm, whereas respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are shown as the partners of the said partnership firm, respondent No. 1.

The appellant instituted the aforesaid civil suit before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad alleging that the appellant had issued an open tender No. STG/PUR/G/I/57/OT/71-72 which was due on 22nd February, 1972. By issuing the aforesaid tender the appellant (original plaintiff) invited offers for the supply of certain types of pipes being E.R.W.M.S. Pipes. In fact, the tender contained requirements of four types of pipes of different sizes and different qualities. We are concerned with item No. 2 viz., E.R.W.M.S. Pipes having size of 15/16" x 14G quantity 4689 meters plus 15% expected increase which would mean to 7500 metres. We are not concerned with other types of pipes which were covered by the said tender.

While issuing the tender, certain conditions were laid down as stated in the tender itself. The rates of the goods were required to remain in force upto 21st June, 1972. The tender consisted of a covering letter, tender schedule, declaration to be signed by the tenderer, information required to be furnished along with the tender by the tenderer and terms and conditions governing the submission of the tender. All these papers were to constitute a contract between the parties when the tender was accepted.

It appears that along with other persons the present respondents also filled in tender and submitted their offers with respect to the disputed item No. 2 of the tender. The rate shown was at Rs. 3.50 per metre. The tender and stores committee of the appellant (original plaintiff) finalised the purchase of the said item by Respondent No. 2456 on 20th April, 1972. Under the said resolution the tender of the present respondents with respect to the aforesaid item No. 2 was accepted by the appellant (original plaintiff). The communication was made to the respondents vide letter dated 21st April, 1972 stating that the tender of the respondents was accepted by the appellant. Therefore, according to the case of the appellant, the contract was concluded by the aforesaid acceptance letter dated 21st April, 1972 issued by the appellant to the respondents.

On receiving the aforesaid acceptance letter dated 21st April, 1972 the respondents took certain objections. One of the objections was that there was a mistake on part of the respondents in quoting the rate at Rs. 3.50 per metre which was actually meant to be at Rs. 3.50 per foot. There were other objections also but the appellant did not accept these objections and insisted on supply of the said item to the appellant at Rs. 3.50 per metre. The appellant also issued notice to the respondents stating that if the respondents did not supply the said item at the quoted rate then the appellant would be constrained to purchase the said item from the open market and appellant would be put to some loss and the respondents would be responsible and liable for the said loss Despite the said notice, the respondents did not supply the said item to the appellant at the quoted rates. Therefore, according to the case of the appellant, they purchased the said item from the open market and, therefore, the