In contractual disputes, pre-existing communications and legal proceedings can extend the limitation period, while evidence must be assessed on the preponderance of probabilities rather than strict standards of proof.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against a reversing judgment. The suit of the plaintiff for realization of Rs.2,32,426/- from the defendant No.2 was decreed by the trial Court and reversed in appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that it is a proprietary concern engaged in manufacturing and supply of bread (bun) having its factory at Rasulgarh in Bhubaneswar. Defendant No.2 is a registered society working under the administrative control of the Government in Department of Women and Child Development (defendant No.1). The plaintiff offered to supply bread to defendant no.2 meant for distribution among the street children and accordingly submitted quotation on 25.01.2001. Defendant no.2 accepted the quotation and requested for supply of bread to different centers with effect from 01.02.2001. The plaintiff also used to supply bread earlier till the end of December, 2000. The plaintiff, pursuant to the order, supplied bread daily and submitted bills on different dates between 07.03.2001 to 14.12.2001 in all, amounting to Rs.2,67,426/-. Out of the said amount, defendant No.2 paid Rs.10,000/- in cash, Rs.20,000 by cheque dated 13.06.2001 and again cash of Rs.5000/- on 15.03.2002. Thus, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.35,000/- from defendant No.2 but the balance amount of Rs.2,32,426/- was not paid despite several requests. On 07.06.2003, the plaintiff wrote to defendant No.2 requesting for realization of payment. Since no action was taken, the plaintiff approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6993 of 2004. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner also approached the Lokpal, who by order dated 22.06.2006, held that the Secretary of the Society had failed to discharge his duty. Further, this Court disposed of the writ application on 18.09.2007 directing defendant No.2 to consider the representation of the plaintiff within two months. Copy of said order being submitted by the plaintiff on 26.09.2007, the plaintiff was asked to submit the relevant papers as the file was missing. The plaintiff submitted all the attested copies of documents on 12.10.2007. But by letter dated 22.11.2007, the claim of plaintiff was rejected by defendant No.2. The plaintiff thereafter served notice under Section 80 of CPC on the defendants on 09.08.2010. Since there was no response, he filed the suit.

4. Defendant No.1-State filed written statement stating that defendant No.2 being an autonomous and independent body, it has no administrative control over the same. The grievance of the plaintiff relating to arrear claim being received on 22.07.2003, the same was forwarded to defendant No.2 for consideration and payment of the admissible dues. There is no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and therefore, no liability could be saddled on it.

5. Defendant No.2 filed written statement questioning the genuineness of the receipts/bill submitted. The payment of Rs.35,000/- made by it was stated to have been made for the supply made in the year 2000 but not against the supply made in 2001. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the plaintiff’s case was thoroughly verified but as the claim was found to be illegal, forged and fabricated, the same was rejected.

6. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the f