- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sangamesh Printing Press v. Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Development Board .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a registered partnership firm, sued the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Board to recover Rs 51,036.60 as the price and interest for printed forms and registers allegedly supplied to the defendant. The plaint asserted that a contract had been entered into with the approval of the Taluk Board, whereas the defendant’s written statement denied any valid contract and claimed that the supplies were unauthorised. The trial court framed seven issues and, while deciding most issues in favour of the plaintiff, ultimately dismissed the suit for non-joinder of the State of Karnataka, holding that Order 27 Rule 5-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) required the State to be impleaded when a government officer is sued.
On appeal, the High Court declined to rule on the non-joinder question but reversed the trial court on Issue 2, finding no evidence of Taluk Board approval of the contract, and dismissed the appeal. During the appeal the appellant had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the State, but the High Court disposed of the appeal without deciding that application. The present opinion addresses the appellant’s challenge to the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in disposing of the appeal without first determining the appellant’s pending application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the State of Karnataka as a party.
- Whether, in the absence of proof of Taluk Board approval, the appellant could sustain its claim based on an alleged contract for supply of goods.
- Whether the appellant could alternatively claim compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (quantum meruit) for goods supplied without a formal contract.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed to cure the defect identified by the trial court; the High Court should have decided this application before disposing of the appeal.
- Even if no formal contract was approved by the Taluk Board, supplies were made after quotations were invited, indicating that the work was not gratuitous. Therefore, under Section 70 of the Contract Act, the appellant is entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the High Court’s finding on Issue 2—lack of evidence of Taluk Board approval—appeared correct. However, it emphasized that the High Court’s failure to decide the appellant’s Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application caused serious prejudice. The outcome of that application is pivotal: if refused, the suit could fail for non-joinder; if allowed, further consideration of the merits, including the potential application of Section 70, would be necessary. Because the High Court bypassed this procedural step, its judgment could not stand. The Court therefore ruled that the appellate process must first address the impleadment application and then assess the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
Holding and Implications
The judgment of the High Court is set aside and Regular First Appeal No. 29 of 1987 is restored to the High Court’s file. The High Court is directed to adjudicate the pending Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application for impleading the State of Karnataka and thereafter dispose of the appeal afresh. No order as to costs was made. The decision primarily affects the parties by reinstating the appeal and imposes no new substantive precedent beyond underscoring the necessity to decide pending procedural applications before final disposal of an appeal.
1. The appellant (plaintiff) which is a registered firm had filed a suit against the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Board for recovery of Rs 51,036.60 being the price and interest thereon in respect of the printed forms and registers which had allegedly been supplied to the defendant (respondent herein).
2. In the plaint which was filed, it was, inter alia, alleged that an agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on the basis of which the aforesaid goods were supplied. In para 2 of the plaint, it was stated that a contract had been entered into between the parties after approval of the Taluk Board.
3. In the written statement which was filed, various objections were taken. It was, inter alia, submitted that no valid contract had been entered into and supply had been made by the plaintiff unauthorisedly. There was also an objection taken with regard to the validity of the notice issued by the plaintiff.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
“(1) Whether the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has entered into a contract of supply of forms and registers as alleged in plaint para 2?
(3) Whether the notice issued by the plaintiff is legal and valid?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest?
(5) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has unautho-risedly delivered the bundles of forms and registers in the office of the defendant?
(6) Whether the defendant proves that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as contended in para 11 of the written statement?
(7) What order or decree?”
5. Except for Issue 3, the trial court decided Issues 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff, but came to the conclusion that as the suit had been filed against a government official, the plaintiff should have complied with the provisions of Order 27 Rule 5-A CPC and impleaded the State as a party. As the State had not been impleaded in the said suit, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. For this reason, Issues 3 and 7 were decided against the plaintiff.
6. In appeal, the High Court chose not to decide the correctness of the decision of the trial court with regard to Issues 3 and 7. It came to the conclusion that Issue 2 had been wrongly decided in favour of the plaintiff, inasmuch as the plaintiff had led no evidence to show that the Taluk Board had ever approved the execution of the contract between the parties. For this reason, the appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in order to get over the difficulty faced by it as a result of the decision of the trial court with regard to Issue 3, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC had been filed in the High Court in the instant case praying for impleadment of the State of Karnataka as one of the defendants. It is not in dispute that the said application has not been decided, but the appeal has been disposed of. We find that the decision of the High Court with regard to Issue 2 appears to be correct, inasmuch as no evidence has been led by the appellant to show the approval of the Taluk Board to the contract which was alleged to have been entered into between the parties. But the matter does not end here. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to invoke the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act and it was contended that the trial court had found that the order was placed on the appellant after quotations had been invited. He submits that it is clear that the work was not undertaken by the appellant gratuitously and such supplies had been made by it, then applying the principle of quantum meruit in respect to the work done, the appellant was entitled to be paid in respect thereof. It is, therefore, contended that while deciding Issue 7 the High Court ought to have given the relief prayed for.
8. It appears that the contention based on Section 70 of the Contract Act was not raised before the High Court. Nevertheless on the basis of the findings recorded by the trial court, the High Court could have considered the applicability of Section 70 to the facts of the present case. What is, however, important is that the High Court did not deal with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. If the application was not allowed then, possibly, there would have been no occasion to deal with the contention raised on the basis of Section 70 for the suit would be liable to be dismissed for not impleading the State Government. But if the High Court had chosen to allow the application, then different consequences may have followed.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have decided the appellant's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and, thereafter, proceeded to hear the appeal in question. Not having disposed of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore Regular First Appeal No. 29 of 1987 to its file. The High Court should first deal with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which is pending before it and then proceed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
10. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert