S.K. Kar, J.
1. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u) of the CPC filed by the appellant, M/a. Akshay Automobiles, a firm which was plaintiff in connected Money Suit No. 17/85 before Asstt. District Judge, Jorhat. The suit was dismissed on contest with cost. Against the dismissal an appeal was filed before the District Judge who passed an order allowing the appeal and remanding the suit for fresh disposal.
2. The case for appellant/plaintiff firm is that respondent No. 3 Asatt. Engineer electrical Sub-Division, C.P.W.D. Joirampur, Arunachal Pradesh, plaqed his vehicle ART-750 at the workshop of the appellant/plaintiff for replacement of parts and repairs vide order dated 7-5-85. The vehicle was received on 10-5-82 and the appellant/plaintiff completed the repairing works and replacement of parts and delivered the vehicle to respondent/defendant No. 3 along with Bill No. 30/ 82-83 dated 29-6-82 for Rs. 22,986,20 paise as repairing charges inclusive of cost of the spare parts etc, But in spite of repeated demand the Bill remain unpaid. Thereafter notice Under Section 80(1) of CPC was served but no payment being made finally this suit for recovery of Rs. 34,709.06 paise including the repairing cost and interest (interest being Rs. 11,822.70 paise) from date of the Bill till the date of the filing of the suit along with claim of pendente lite and future interest was instituted.
3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Executive Engineer of the C.P.W.D.) contested the suit by presenting written statement and suit proceeded ex parte against rest of the respondent/defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Respondent No. 1, is The Union of India, 2, is the Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing, Govt. of India and respondent No. 5, is Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. They raised plea of the want of cause of action, non-maintainability, bar of time etc. and contended -that the claim is inflated but the placing of the vehicle for repairs, replacement of the spare parts was admitted by these defendant/respondent. It is further submitted that the bill mentioned in the plaint was not traceable and in spite of their repeated request appellant/plaintiff fail to submit of the manufacturer's price list for the spare parts and the exact amount of labour charges etc. and accordingly the suit was liable to be dismissed.
4. Four issues were framed in the suit and appellant/plaintiff examined one witness and produced documentary evidence in support of the claim. The defendants adduced no evidence of any type, either documentary or oral.
5. I have heard both sides, perused the impugned judgment and considered the evidence on record. There is no cross-objection and this appeal is presented with the limited prayer for challenging the remand order passed by the first Appellate Court directing fresh trial and amendment of the plaint by impleading State of Arunachal Pradesh as a party. It was further argued that the first appellate Court accordingly misconstrued the provision of Section 34 of State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986. That respondent Nos. 3 and 4 being part and parcel of Union of India had no connection with the erstwhile Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh nor the subsequent State of Arunachal Pradesh which came into existence with effect from 20-2-1987 vide notification No. S.O. 74(E) dated 11-1-1987. That the Court overlooked the provision of Section 34(4) of the Arunachal Pradesh Act and wrongly gave stress on Sub-section 34(1), (2) and (3) of the said Act.
6. The remaining portion of the judgment being in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and there being no cross appeal, it was submitted that on the basis of findings of the first appellate Court the suit is competent to be decreed without repeating the discussion of evidence.
7. Learned First Appellate Court has recorded a conclusive finding after the discussion of the evidence and held the claim of the appellant/plaintiff both as genuine and just. The, relevant portion of the judgment is quoted as hereunder.
'Moreover the, respondents/defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in their letters marked Exbts. 6 to 10 have nowhere made mention that bill for Rs. 22,986.20 paise on account of repairing of the vehicle in question was not submitted by the appellant/plaintiff for payment, rather the contents thereof particularly the contents of the letter marked Exbt. 10 written by the Respondent/Defendant No. 3 to the respondent/defendant No. 4 stands to mean crystal clearly that bill for payment of Rs. 22,986.20 paise on account of repairing of the vehicle was received by the respondents/defendants Nos. 3 and 4. In this letter (Exbt. 10 the respondent/defendant No. 3 appears to have admitted in clear words without any ambiguity that the draft work order along with essential certificates in support of the rate of labour charge etc. received by the respondent/defendant No. 3 were sent by him to the respondent/defendant No. 4 for finalising the claim of the appellant/plaintiff i.e. for the bill. The fact as stated above bring it home that the bill for Rs. 22,986.20 paise stated to have been submitted by the appellant/ plaintiff and the necessary documents relating to the rate of manufacturer's price of parts supplied and the rate of labour charge along with necessary certificates were received by the respondents/defendants Nos. 3 and 4 but surprisingly the learned assistant District Judge, Jorhat in deciding relevant Issue No. 3 has not at all taken Exbts. 6 to 10 revealing the above fact for discussion, consideration and appreciation and no finding thereon has been arrived at by him though these documents conclusively stand to mould a definite conclusion that the bill and the necessary documents thereof were received by the respondents/defendants and that on the face of such fact the plea taken by them for being excused for non-payment of the bill falls through.'
8. At the risk of repetition it is found that there being no cross-appeal against the findings of fact, the above quoted findings of the first Appellate Court can be accepted safely and the suit can be decreed. The relevant portion of law which was relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff goes as follows :--
'Assets and Liabilities
34. xxx xxx xxx
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to, or in relation to,--
(a) any institution, undertaking or project the expenditure in relation to which is, immediately before the appointed day, met from and out of the Consolidated Fund of India;'
Thus, the finding of first appellate Court on merit of the claim of appellant/plaintiff is accepted as finding of this Court also.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the first appellate Court rendered in Money Appeal No. 3/ 1986 stands modified and varied to the extent that order remanding the suit for fresh disposal is set aside and the suit stands decreed on contest with costs against defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The plaintiff will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from 130-7-1996 till the decree is fully satisfied.
10. The name of respondent/defendant No. 5 will be struck off.