JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Addl.Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in M.S. No.178 of 1977.

2. Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs.19,546/- from the defendant-respondent No.1 with the plead¬ing that the truck bearing registration No. ORU 4473 belonging to the defendant-respondent No.1 and driven by defendant-respondent No.2 in rash and negligent manner met with an accident on the Mahanadi bridge causing damage to the left side foot-path of the girder parapet, cross-girders, rails, slabs etc. It was pleaded that for the repair of the above noted damages to the bridge, a sum of Rs.21,697.66 paise was spent, but after completion of the repair work, the wooden materials used for the repair were sold in public auction and a sum of Rs.2151/- was realized leaving a balance of Rs.19,546.66 paise. The defendants in their written statement denied the claim and the pleading of the plaintiff-appellant in toto. The defendant-respondent No.1 not only denied the ownership of the truck in question, but also denied to have engaged defendant No.2 as driver of the truck. The fact of acci¬dent and damage to the bridge was also denied. In addition to such denial, it was further pleaded that the suit was not main¬tainable as the Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Cuttack is not the proper person to represent the State and that the claim aris¬ing out of a motor vehicle accident is not maintainable in the Civil Court. Considering the pleadings of the parties, learned Sub-ordinate Judge framed as many as 12 issues and accepted the evidence of the parties. The plaintiff examined the Sub-Assistant Engineer as the sole witness and produced some documents to prove the expenditure with regard to the repair of the bridge. No evi¬dence oral or documentary was adduced from the side of the de¬fendants. Considering the pleadings and evidence on record, learned Sub-ordinate Judge came to the conclusion that there was damage to the Mahanadi bridge because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck bearing No.ORU-4473 and that the plaintiff had to spend Rs.21,697.66 paise for repair of the damaged portion of the bridge. The Court also accepted that the wooden materials were sold for Rs.2151/- and that the suit is maintainable in the Civil Court, but disallowed the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that there was no evi¬dence to show that the defendant No.1 was the owner of the truck or defendant No.2 caused the accident due to his rash and negli¬gent driving. The claim was also negatived on the ground that Executive Engineer, N.H. Division was not competent to represent the State of Orissa and maintain the suit. Aggrieved by such findings, the plaintiff-State has filed this appeal.

3. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl.Standing Counsel appear¬ing for the appellant submits that the statement of P.W.1 that during spot inspection he found the name and address of the defendant No.1 written on the truck describing him as the owner of the truck was sufficient to establish the ownership of defend¬ant No.1 over the truck particularly when there is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the defendants. He also submits that by a notification the State Government has given special power to all Executive Engineers, to sign plaint, written statement on behalf of the state and therefore, there was no scope for the trial Court to observe that the Executive Engineer, N.H. Divi¬sion, Cuttack was not competent person to represent the State and bring the suit. Mr. Das seeks permission of this Court to produce those documents as additional evidence as per Order 41 Rule 27 (b) of the C.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendants making certain allegations; so the burden was on the plaintiff to prove the allegations and link the defendants with the incident. According to him, when th