A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Agartala, West Tripura, in Money Appeal No. 01 of 2008, where by and where under, the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (senior Division), West Tripura, Agartala in M.S. No. 43 of 2003, has been affirmed.

2. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

3. The facts, leading to filing of this appeal, may be stated, in brief, as follows:

The Plaintiff-Respondent herein, is a Contractor by profession. She was verbally instructed/requested by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Agartala, for undertaking some construction/repairing works, for the Camp at 89 Bn. C.R.P.F Head Quarters at Lembucherra, on emergency basis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff-Respondent agreed and executed the entrusted works as per order/instructions of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Agartala. The work in question was completed in the month of May, 2000 and after completion of the works, the Commandant 89 Bn. CRPF, Lembucherra communicated completion report of the said work to the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala. On account of the construction/repairing works so carried out, the Plaintiff-Respondent, spent an amount of Rs. 2,71,137/-. The aforesaid work was carried out by the Plaintiff-Respondent, under the direct supervision of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Agartala.

On completion of the entrusted work followed by submission of the completion report, the Plaintiff-Respondent submitted her bills for payment an amount of Rs. 2,71,137/-. The bills were verified and certified by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Agartala. All such bills were forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala for payment.

When the Plaintiff-Respondent was waiting to collect the payment of her bills, surprisingly, the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala, on 19.09.2002, cancelled the Work Order, without giving the Plaintiff-Respondent, any opportunity of hearing. The Plaintiff-Respondent, being surprised with the said letter, sought for clarification and prayed for withdrawal of the letter dated 19.09.2002, issued by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala, and urged for payment of the bills submitted by her after due verification. The Respondents gave No. reply to her and thereafter the Plaintiff-Respondent issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure through his Advocate. However, even thereafter, there was No. response whatsoever, in respect of the said notice Under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure issued by the Plaintiff-Respondent. Hence, the Plaintiff brought a suit M.S. No. 43 of 2003, for recovery of her bills amounting to Rs. 2,71,137/- in the trial Court.

4. The Defendants-Appellants contested the suit by filing written statement alleging therein, inter-alia, that the suit is not maintainable in its present form and nature, and the plaint was not properly signed and verified by the Plaintiff-Respondent, and the Plaintiff-Respondent had No cause of action against the Defendants Appellants. The Defendants-Appellants also pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The Defendants-Appellants further asserted that the Work Order was rightly cancelled, as the Plaintiff-Respondent had not undertaken the work in due time and some of the works, carried out by the Plaintiff-Respondent, was below standard.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for just decision of the case:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable

2. Whether the Defendants issued work order in favour of the Plaintiff and if the Pl