The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of territorial jurisdiction, validity of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the provisions of the Limitation Act.

( 1 ) THE State of Orissa represented by Collector, Sambalpur and also the Block Development Officer, Naktideul in the district of Sambalpur have preferred this appeal as against the judgment and decree passed against them by the Subordinate judge, Berhampur (presently Civil Judge, senior Division), in Money Suit No. 106 of 1977 as per the impugned judgment passed on 6-9-1980, while plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF as the Manager and Proprietor of Pratibha Prakash Bhawan, a publisher and Printers and Govt. order suppliers was holding its business at Berhampur. On 14-3-1974 he received the order in the district of Sambalpur from defendant No. 2, for supply of Office stationery i. e. some categories of printed forms by transporting the same through Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. Berhampur and thereafter on 25-8-1974 he submitted the bill i. e. the cost of the printed forms calculating it at Rs. 11,500/ -. Instead of making payment, the Defendant No. 2 made correspondence with the plaintiff as per its letter dated 11-10-1974 mentioning that 1600 numbers of Fly Leafs and 500 numbers of D. C. Bill forms were not received by it and that the articles supplied were in excess than the order supplied and further that the rate quoted in the bill is on the higher side. Plaintiff reiterated his contention relating to supply of the entire stock as per the bill and requested for payment. The long drawn correspondence between the parties when did not enure any result nor any payment was made by the Defendant no. 2, therefore, plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'c. P. C. ') as against the defendants and claimed for the aforesaid bill amount. Defendants did not respond to that notice nor made payment and, therefore, plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 11,500/- along with damage of Rs. 4,140/- at the rate of 12% for blocking of his capital. Thus he made a total claim of Rs. 15. 640/- with pendente lite and future interest.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS filed a joint written statement. In substance their plea was that no order was placed in the manner stated in the plaint, the order was not taken from the defendant No. 2 by following due procedure and in any event the supply of the articles is not against indent or contract inasmuch as the printed forms not ordered were also supplied and there was shortage of the above noted two articles of forms i. e. Fly Leafs and d. C. Bill form. They also advanced the plea that the suit is not maintainable in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur because the cause of action arose in the district of sambalpur and that plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleading, the trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the plaintiff entitled to suit amount? 3. Whether the price charged is high and supplies made at usual fair price and whether the defendants are liable for unindented goods? 4. Are the defendants or any defendant liable for interest? 5. Whether the suit is maintainable? 6. If defendant No. 1 is a necessary party, 7. To what relief?

( 5 ) IN support of his case, each of the parties examined one witness. Plaintiff examined himself as p. W. No. 1 and the Official staff from the Office of the Defendant no. 2 was examined as D. W. No. 1. Plaintiff relied on several documents marked Exts. 1 to 14. Out of them, Ext. 1 is the original order placed on 14-3-1974 by the Defendant no. 2 with the Plaintiff and Ext. I/a is the terms of contract. Ext. 2 is the receipt granted on 1-5-1974 regarding transporting the articles through the carrier and exts. 3 to 8 and 10 to 14 is the correspondence between the parties. Ext. 9 is the office copy of the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. of the plaintiff having been sent to the defendants. From the side of the Defendant, ext. A is the copy of the order submitted by the plaintiff and Exts. B to F