Tripura High Court
Sri Sadhan Ch. Deb vs The State Of Tripura on 11 February, 2022
Page - 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
RFA 01 OF 2019
Sri Sadhan Ch. Deb, son of late Manmohan Deb,
Resident of Bhattapukur, PS- A.D.Nagar, District-West Tripura.
Prop. of Tripura Mechanical Works, Bardowali, near IOC,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799003.
---- Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs,
Civil Secretariat, New Capital Complex, Agartala,
District-Tripura West, PIN-799006.
2. The Superintendent of Police (West),
Office at Police Head Quarter, Agartala, PS West Agartala,
District-Tripura West, PIN-799001.
---Respondents.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.C. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Date of hearing &
delivery of Judgment and order : 11.02.2022
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
Judgment & Order (Oral)
(Arindam Lodh, J.)
This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2018, passed
Page - 2 of 3
by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura,
Agartala in case no. MS 37/2016.
2. The plaintiff-appellant [here-in-after referred to as the
plaintiff] had instituted a suit for realization of money worth Rs.19,33,248/-
along with interest from the defendant-respondents [here-in-after referred
to as the defendants]. It is the case of the plaintiff that he supplied spare
parts of motor vehicles and also repaired many vehicles of the police
department since 2003. The respondents had paid some of the bills as
raised by the plaintiff. But, they did not pay the remaining balance bills as
stated in the plaint. Against these assertions made by the plaintiff, the
defendants have stated that the claim of the plaintiff is baseless, imaginary
and unjustified. It is the further case of the defendants that without any
break-up or specific mention of the bills, it is not possible for them to
detect or identify the bills against which supply order they did not pay.
3. During the course of hearing learned Civil Judge has framed
the following issues:-
i. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature?
ii. Has the plaintiff cause of action to institute this suit?
iii. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a sum of Rs.19,33,248/- from the
defendants? If so, is the plaintiff entitled to get any interest thereof, as
prayed for?
Page - 3 of 3
iv. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree, as prayed for?
v.What other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?
4. Heard Mr. D.R.Chowdhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by
Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr.
K.C.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. While deciding the issue of maintainability, learned trial court
held that the claim upto the period of 22.08.2013 is barred by limitation.
Learned trial court has further observed that the plaintiff did not try to call
the author of the supply orders to admit his hand writing. As such, the
supply orders cannot be said to be proved. We have gone through the bills.
It is found that the bills were not proved in accordance with Section 67 and
Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Moreso, he being the plaintiff has to plead
each and every facts transparently in support of his claim and first burden
lies upon him to substantiate the facts, which he failed to discharge. So, we
are unable to interfere with the findings of learned trial Court that the
plaintiff has failed to establish his claim.
6. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Send back the LC Records.
JUDGE JUDGE
