1. The judgment and decree dated 15.6.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 92 of 2006 has been called in question by the plaintiff of the suit in the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in entirety.

2. The present appellant, as Plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 92 of 2006 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3 at Guwahati on 30.5.2006 stating that it is partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and engaged in business of supplying tools and machinery to Government and Non-Government Organization. The defendant No. 2 issued a notice on 16.8.2005 from registered firm/ suppliers/ contractors for supplying Hearing Kits, Wheel Chairs, T.V and Tape Recorder etc. to be supplied under implementation of ADIP Scheme sponsored by Govt. of India. Defendant No. 2 being a registered firm submitted sealed quotation for the purpose. On 19.8.2005 defendant No.2 placed order for supply of 600 Hearing Kits @ Rs.10,248/-, 450 nos. of wheel chair @ Rs.10,798/-, 260 TV Sets @ Rs. 19,998/- each and 1,500 nos. of Tape Recorders @ Rs.2,495/- each. Out of the same supply order, plaintiff supplied as many as 600 Hearing Kits, value of which was Rs.61,48,800/- and 70 nos. of wheel chairs valuing to Rs.7,55,860/- on 14.11.2005. The office of the defendant No. 2 received the same which was counter signed by none other than defendant No. 2. Thereafter, plaintiff submitted bill for Rs.69,04,660/- . Ten days, thereafter, on 29.8.2005, defendant No. 2 issued another supply order for 298 Hearing Kits and 180 nos. of wheel chairs at the previous rate which the plaintiff supplied on 14.11.2005 and office of the defendant no.2 duly received the same. The acknowledgment is counter signed by defendant No.2. The plaintiff submitted bill for this consignment at Rs.49,97,544/-. The defendant No. 2 issued two cheques on 21.11.2005 on State Bank of India, Beltola Branch for Rs. 69,06,660/- and on SBI Dispur Branch for an amount of Rs.49,97,544 as against the two aforesaid bills of the plaintiffs. But on being presented the cheques were dishonoured. While cheque dated 21.11.2005 was dishonoured for giving wrong account number and using wrong chequebook, the cheque dated 22.11.2005 of the Dispur Branch of SBI was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The plaintiff made request for payment to defendant No. 2 on several occasions, however, to no avail and under such compelling circumstance, plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendant by registered post demanding payment of the aforesaid amount within the notice period. Even after service of notice, no payment was made and therefore the suit was instituted for a total sum of Rs.1,19, 02,204/- along with other reliefs. The defendants appeared and submitted written statement on being summoned with two usual objections as to maintainability of the suit. It was claimed that the suit is not maintainable, that there is no cause of action, that the suit is bad for defect of parties and that the plaintiff does not have any right to institute the suit against the answering defendants. In para-8 of the written statement, the defendants stated that Notice Inviting Tender dated 16.8.2005 was never officially issued from the Commissioner for Persons with Disability and that office of the Commissioner is yet to be declared as head of department by Government and consequently the defendant No. 2 does not have drawing and disbursing power at all. Besides , no fund was sanctioned by Government under such scheme in the name of the defendant No. 2 during the financial year 2005-06 and no such fund was received by the office since its inception till December, 2004. Under such circumstances, there was no scope for issuing any tender for supply of items by defendant No.2 at all. It was mentioned in the sa