JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 6th December, 1985, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Beawar, in Civil Suit No. 57/85 (66/85), are as under : 2. On 22nd May, 1982, the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,709/- against the defendant-appellant, with the allegations that the plaintiff-firm who had sued through its partner Mahaveer Chand, was registered under the Partnership Act and was carrying on business of selling cloth and that the defendant-appellant used to buy cloth on credit from the plaintiff-firm and that during the period from 4th November, 1977 to 4th October, 1979, the defendant had purchased goods worth Rs. 12,928.74 vide the bills dated 7th November, 1977, 22nd November, 1977, 19th April, 1978, 27th July, 1978 and 8th October, 1979 and that part payments of the amount had also been made by the defendant during the said period. It was further alleged that according to the agreement between the parties, the defendant was liable to pay to the plaintiff interest at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month on the amount remaining unpaid and that a sum of Rs. 7,193.69 was due by way of principal and Rs. 6,484.62 was due by way of interest and that the plaintiff was also entitled to recover from the defendant Rs. 489.33 on account of collection charges. In this view of the matter, it was contended that the suit-amount was due to the plaintiff from the defendant on the date of the filing of the suit and it was prayed that a decree for the suit-amount, with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month, be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant, who denied the registration of the plaintiff-firm under the Partnership Act but admitted that he had purchased the goods on credit. He also pleaded that after the institution of the suit, he had paid Rs. 1,500/- to the plaintiff, which had not been accounted for. He denied any liability by way of any agreement for paying any interest and also contended that the order was placed at Tonk, where the goods were also supplied. He also pleaded that after the institution of the suit, he had paid Rs. 1,500/- to the plaintiff, which had not been accounted for. He denied any liability by way of any agreement for paying any interest and also contended that the order was placed at Tonk, where the goods were also supplied. He also took the plea that the Beawar-court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was also contested on the ground that it was barred by time. After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, besides hearing their learned counsel, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that it had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and further that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. It was also held that the plaintiff was a firm duly registered under the Partnership Act. It was also held that the defendant was bound to pay interest at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month in accordance with the agreement, contained in the order-form, which was signed by the defendant and by which,, the order for supply of goods on credit was placed by the defendant on the plaintiff. It was also found that no amount of Rs. 1,500/- had been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff after the institution of the suit and that the suit-amount was due to the plaintiff from the defendant on the date of the filing of the suit. Consequently, a decree for the suit-amount and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 5,75/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the defendant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. It has been contended by Shri R.K. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that the learned trial court erred in holding that there was an agreement between the parties for payment of interest at the rate of 1.5 per cent per month on the unpaid amount and, as such, the learned trial court erred in granting interest to the plaintiff at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the principal sum due to the plaintiff from the defendant. 5. 5. It has not been disputed that the order forms proved on record as Exhibits-10 to 13 have been signed by the defendant and these order-forms contain a condition that interest at the above-said rate would be payable by the defendant in case of his failure to pay the amount within 25 days of the date of the bill. It is also the case of the plaintiff in the pleading that this clause was also there in the bills given to the defendant after the goods were supplied to him on receipt of the above said order. Non-production of the bills by the defendant, who has not denied the receipt of the bills also will lead the Court to draw an adverse inference that if the bills had been produced, that would not have favoured the defendant in this regard. The notice, sent by the plaintiff has been proved on record as Exhibit-7, and in this notice also, it is specifically mentioned that according to the agreement between the parties, the rate of interest payable was 1.5 per cent per month. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted. 6. No other point has been raised before me. 7. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******