JUDGMENT

Akshaya Kumar Rath, J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 12.1.1996 and 27.1.1996 respectively passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jeypore in Money Appeal No. 2 of 1994 confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.8.1993 and 7.9.1993 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore in Money Suit No. 103 of 1988. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of petrol, diesel and lubricants having retail outlet of HPC Limited. On the request of the Collector, Koraput, it supplied petrol, diesel and lubricants to the vehicles of the Collectorate on credit basis, according to the coupons issued by the officers in duplicate. The drivers of the concerned vehicle used to sign on the reverse side coupons in token of receipt of commodity. In case of urgent requirement, the driver used to sign on the credit bill and no coupons were issued. Bills were submitted to the office of the Collector once in a month. There was a stipulation in the bill for charge of interest at the rate of 18% per annum, if the bill was not cleared within a month. The procedure was followed for the last twenty years. On account of credit supplies, an amount of Rs. 1,07,775.62 ps. was outstanding against the defendant by 14.10.1987. On 14.10.1987, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid. The balance Rs. 82,775.62 ps. was outstanding. Notice issued under Section 80, CPC was received by the defendant on 28.10.1987. On 24.11.1987, a sum of Rs. 12,010/- was paid. The plaintiff requested on 12.1.1988 for an advance payment of Rs. 60,000/-. On 14.1.1988, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid towards outstanding bills. Still an amount of Rs. 50,763.67 ps. was outstanding. Since some of the claims were barred by limitation, the plaintiff confined its claim to Rs. 42,990.47 ps. over which interest @ 18% per annum i.e. Rs. 4,461.43 ps. was payable. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed for realisation of Rs. 47,451.90 ps. with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the defendant.

2. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. The case of the defendant is that there was no agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff for supply of petrol, diesel, oil, etc. on credit basis and, as such, the suit was not maintainable. The Collector had authorised the officers to give requisition and pay money. Drivers were not authorised to take oil on credit basis. In the event plaintiff had given any oil to the drivers, the defendant was not responsible for the same. Further, in absence of any agreement for payment of interest is unjustifiable. With regard to the bills, it is stated that 62 bills amounting to Rs. 76,168.15 ps., as described in Annexure-I of the plaint, was only pending as on 14.10.1987. On 14.10.1987, Rs. 25,000/- was paid. The plaintiff had no right to adjust the said amount for the dues of the previous years. Out of 62 bills, 50 bills amounting to Rs. 57,091.00 were paid on subsequent dates and the balance of 12 bills for Rs. 19,097.15 ps. only was outstanding. The claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation.

3. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck nine issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses and on its behalf 198 documents had been exhibited. The defendant had examined one witness and on its behalf sixteen documents had been exhibited. Learned trial Judge came to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 31,506.47 ps. from the defendant over which no interest is payable, but then dismissed the suit with a finding that the suit is hit under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, since the firm was not represented by any of the partners after death of the Managing Partner during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jeypore in Money Appeal No. 9 of 1993, which w