JUDGMENT :- This is defendant's appeal. The suit giving rise to the present second appeal was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the defendant-appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,700.

2. The plaintiff's case was that the; plaintiff carried on transport business under the name and style of U.P. Government Roadways throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh; the defendant was an Army Service Corps Contractor in the year 1950; the defendant as such had to supply all types of transport to the Military Officers at Dehradun; that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the defendant used to secure vehicles from the plaintiff-appellant from time to time to fulfil his obligation to supply transport vehicles to the Army Service Corps; the defendant had undertaken to pay the hire charges to the plaintiff for the same. From 28th April 1950 to 26th September, 1950, the plaintiff supplied to the defendant transport vehicles for the use of the Military Officers on different dates and a sum of Rs. 6,223-11-9 became due to the plaintiff from the defendant on account of the said hire charges. The plaintiff, however, filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,700 only.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant. It was admitted by the defendant in his written statement that the plaintiff did carry on transport business under the name and style of the U.P. Government Roadways. It was also admitted by the defendant that he was a Military Contractor. The defendant, however, alleged that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the plaintiff really had supplied trucks and taxis directly to the Military Authorities and that the obligation to pay the hire charges, therefore, was on the Military Authorities.

4. The trial Court arrived at the conclusion that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. On such finding, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

5. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court. It decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 2,700 with costs against the defendant.

6. It has been observed by the lower appellate court in its judgment that the only question for decision in the appeal before it, was whether there was any contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, by which the defendant had agreed to pay the hire charges of the truck and taxis supplied by the plaintiff. The lower appellate court arrived at the conclusion that there was a contract between the parties as alleged by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount claimed in the suit. It was not disputed by the defendant that the plaintiff carried on the business of transport and that the defendant was a Military contractor, and as such it was for the defendant to supply vehicles to the Military Authorities during the relevant period. It also appears that the counsel for the defendant conceded that the sum due in respect of hire charges was Rs. 2,700.

In order to establish the contract set up by the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined one Ram Saran (P.W. 1) who was the Senior Station Incharge from 1950 to 1955 at Dehradun. This witness had clearly corroborated the plaintiff's case. It does not appear that any attempt at all was made on behalf of the defendant to challenge the statement of this witness on the crucial point. On the other hand, the defendant himself had admitted that he had some talk with Sri Ram Saran about the supply of trucks and taxis to the Military Authorities. By the statement of Ram Saran, it is established that the plaintiff had to supply trucks and taxis to the Military Authorities and the hire charges were to be paid to the plaintiff from the account of the defendant and that the defendant would be responsible for the payment of the hire charges to the plaintiff.

In fact at one stage, the defendant admitted that i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document