The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 to the case and the mandatory deposit requirement for filing an appeal under Section 7 of the Act.

N. C. JAIN, Actg. C. J. :- This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,60,594/- with 21% interest from the date of filing the suit till realisation of the decretal amount. The State of Assam has come up in appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court.

2. The counsel for the decree-holder has taken up a preliminary objection, but we are of the considered opinion that it will be necessary to have a look at the pleadings of the parties before discussing preliminary objection.

3. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that it is a registered partnership firm and a small scale industrial undertaking. Paragraph 1 of the plaint is reproduced below :-

"That the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and a small scale industrial undertaking as defined under the provisions of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 (Act 32 of 1993), which came in force initially on the strength of Ordinance dated 23rd September, 1992 and subsequently the Act was adopted and made law of the land. The plaintiff is a small scale industry having manufacturing unit situated at Udharbond within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff is a manufacturer of R.C.C. Hume Pipes, Collers, Components and allied products for the purpose of selling the same to the intending customers and also for supplying to the Govt. Departments on valuable considerations."

4. In the written statement the averments made on facts in paragraph 1 of the plaint have not been denied and it is only stated that the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit.

5. It has been averred in the other parts of the plaint that the defendant No. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 placed supply orders and the materials worth Rs. 2,54,412.50 was supplied against various supply orders, the numbers of which have been given in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It is further the case of the plainiff that on the basis of the relevant entries which were made in the Measurement Books, bills were prepared and the same were submitted for the aforesaid amount, but a sum of Rs. 49,000/- only was paid and rest of the amount was not paid.

6. The defendants, who are as many as 5 in number, filed only one written statement taking up some technical pleas mainly that the plaintiff has no cause of action, the suit is not maintainable and that the same is barred by limitation. The plea of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence has also been taken. It is further the plea of the defendants that the suit is bad for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck the following issues :-

"1. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and manner?

3. Is the suit bad for non-compliance of the provisions of S. 80, C.P.C.?

4. Is this suit barred by limitation?

5. Did the plaintiff firm supply materials worth of Rs. 2,54,512.50?

6. Did the defendants pay total amount of Rs. 49,000/- in instalments?

7. Is the plaintiff firm entitled to a decree as prayed for?"

8. Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were discussed together and it was held that the suit was maintainable in the present form, that the same was not barred by time as it was filed on 7-8-95, whereas the supply was concluded on 20-1-1993. It has further been found that Section 80 C.P.C. notice was served upon the defendants, which was not denied. As regards merit of the case, the trial Court while deciding issues Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff recorded the following finding :-

"The period of limitation for filing this suit is three (3) years from the date of payment of money becoming due. It appears that payment was to be made within one month from the date of supply of the materials and the Manager of the plaintiff firm also requested the defen