Firm Jugul Keshwar Bholanath vs Firm Kishori Lal Behari Lal

Foster, J.—This was a small cause tried by the Subordinate Judge of Patna. The plaintiff sued for, recovery of money due on the balance of an account in respect of the price of oil cake supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant''s answer was that he had refused the oil cake on several grounds, one of which was that the agreement having bean for the sale of 500 bags of oil cake, and 250 bags having been already sent to and received by the defendant, the defendant had the legal right to refuse a second consignment which was not of 250 bags but of 290 bags. The defence has been accepted and the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff has come in revision and it is urged on his behalf that the Court entirely misunderstood the terms of the contract between the parties. In my opinion the meaning of the contract could have been reasonably construed in more than one manner, though of course only one can be correct. The construction put upon the contract by the learned Subordinate Judge was a reasonable construction based upon the correspondence which passed between the parties. Having found the contract to be for 500 bags the Court had the right to apply the terms of Section 119 of the Indian Contract Act, which was the defence taken by the defendant. It is urged that a witness who was examined on commission gave some evidence which, accepted, would have altered the decision. That witness deposed that the plaintiff''s agent came to the place to which the oil cake had been consigned and took delivery after the defendants Had refused it and thereupon the plaintiff''s agent offered to reduce the consignment to 250 bags. I am not persuaded that his evidence has been overlooked and in any case I do not see how a second offer made by the plaintiff''s agent could have altered the rights and liabilities of the parties. The petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.