The Chairman cum Managing Director VsRatan Bardhan

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura in T.S. 15 of 2012 whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff Ratan Bardhan for a sum of Rs. 1,58,58,970/- along with future interest @ 13% till realization of the decreed amount.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the appellant-Food Corporation of India for transporting food grains from the railway siding at Churaibari to the godown of the FCI, Churaibari and thereafter, from Churaibari to Nandannagar, Agartala.

The case of the plaintiff is that the FCI wrongly got the work from some other contractor and he is entitled to the payment for the goods transported during this period. The FCI contested the suit on various grounds. Written statement was filed and thereafter, issues were framed. The parties led evidence. To say the least, the evidence is not at all satisfactory from either side. What the parties have done is only to reproduce their pleadings in the affidavits filed by way of examination-in-chief and there is virtually no evidence on the main disputes between the parties. Not only this, we find that the learned Court below has admitted in evidence photocopies of documents without even the originals being shown to it. The entire case has been decided on the basis of photocopies of documents. The Court did not even care to ensure that the original documents were produced before it. No comparison was done with the original. Therefore, these documents could not be read in evidence.

The Trial Court framed issues, which are as follows:--

"ISSUE

(I) Is there is any cause of action in the suit?

(II) Is the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(III) Whether the public distribution system was disturbed in Tripura State for want of delivery of food grains from F.C.I. in Tripura to state food go-down?

(IV) Whether the imposition of Clause X(c) with penalty of 159% risk & cost of the tender agreement in respect of work order No NEER/TC/CBZ-NGR/11915 dated 11.11.2009 was illegal, arbitrary and against natural justice?

(V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for?

(VI) To what relief/reliefs parties are entitled?"

The issues have not been properly framed and also need to be recast.

The discussion on issues 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been done together and we again do not find any cogent reasons given by the Judge while deciding the issues. He has only made reference to the documents and totally relying upon the tabular statements produced by the plaintiff has decreed the suit without discussing any other relevant evidence. The manner in which the case has been conducted leaves much to be desired.

We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met if the entire case is remanded to the Trial Court to decide the case a fresh. We also make it clear that the learned Trial Court may also frame new issues and recast the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Both the parties shall be given one month''s time to produce the original documents or self-certified copies of the documents before framing of issues. Thereafter, the parties shall be called on to admit and deny the documents filed by either side and on the date fixed for admission and denial of documents the original documents shall be produced before the Court. The documents which are admitted to be correct shall be marked in evidence without formal proof. Thereafter, only the documents which are disputed will have to be proved by leading evidence. After this is done then each of the parties shall be given reasonable time to produce evidence and prove its case.

In view of the nature of the case, we direct that oral evidence shall be recorded even for examination-in-chief and examination-in-chief will not be accepted by way of affidavit. The Court shall ensure that the documents are properly proved in accordance with law and thereafter, the matter shall be decided afresh. Since the suit was filed in the year 2012, we direct the learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible and not later than 30th November, 2015.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with the directions issued hereinabove.

Mr. I. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the FCI has filed a counter suit which is pending in Agartala and that suit should either be stayed or be transferred and heard along with the suit. We cannot pass such an order on the oral request made and liberty is reserved to the parties to move appropriate application in this regard.

Since the appeal has been disposed of, the amount deposited by the FCI be returned to it and the security furnished by it is discharged.