JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal, under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-7-1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota in Civil Suit No. 35/82, decreeding the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for Rs. 11,309.53 p. against the defendant No. 1-appellant. The brief facts are as under: 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had sent 61 bags of sugar to the appellant-defendant No. 1 by truck No. RSK 4880 along with its bill No. 1127 dated 1-12-1980 for Rs. 50,735.53 p i.e. at the rate of Rs. 823/- per bag. The goods along with the bill sent by the plaintiff was received by the appellant on 2-12-1980. On 4-12-1980, the appellant-defendant No. 1 wrote a letter (Ex. 4) to the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of the goods in question but stating that the defendant-appellant could not understand why those goods were sent to him. The said letter sent by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff was received by the latter on 8-12-1980 and vide letter dated 12-12-1980 (Ex. 5) the plaintiff wrote to the appellant that the goods had been sent to the appellant-defendant No. 1 on receipt of an order through Virendra Singh Khorada, broker-defendant No. 2 and that the bill for the amount in question payable by the appellant had also been sent and that it appeared that due to fall in the price of sugar in the intervening period the appellant had been trying to get out of the transaction and hoped that the appellant would make the payment immediately along with interest. The plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by way of a demand draft got issued by the appellant, who also sent to him the accounts of the sale of the sugar conducted by the appellant showing that the sugar had been sold for Rs. 43200.92 p. and after deduction of certain amounts payable in respect of that sale the remaining amount came to Rs. 41629/- and the onl amount payable to the plaintiff after adjusting the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- was Rs. 1629/- which the appellant was prepared to pay to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff. did not receive the amount in accordance with the bill (Ex. 41629/- and the onl amount payable to the plaintiff after adjusting the said sum of Rs. 40,000/- was Rs. 1629/- which the appellant was prepared to pay to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff. did not receive the amount in accordance with the bill (Ex. 3) he filed a suit on or about 26-3-1987 against the appellant-defendant No. 1 and imp leaded the broker as the defendant No. 2 and pleaded that on receipt of the order from the broker-defendant No. 2 he had dispatched the goods vide the truck in question along with the bill (Ex. 3) which was received by the appellant, who,' with a view to avoid the loss because of the fall of the price in sugar had tried to wrongly get out of the contract and further that the appellant-defendant No. 1 had sent to the plaintiff the draft in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- only besides the account in stead of making the payment. He claimed that the suit amount of Rs. 11309.53 p. was due to the plaintiff from the defendant-appellant on the date of filing of the suit including the interest due till that date. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 appellant, who admitted the receipt of the, goods in question, but pleaded that the goods were sent by the plaintiff without any order having been placed by the appellant for the goods in question and that the defendant No. 2, who is a broker, had approached the appellant and had represented that the goods had been wrongly sent to the defendant-appellant, who might sell the same in market for the plaintiff and the sale proceeds be paid to the plaintiff and, thereupon, the goods were sold by the defendant-appellant in the market for Rs. 43200.92 p. and after deducting certain charges the amount payable to the plaintiff was Rs. 41629/- out of which a sum of Rs. 40,000/- having already paid to the plaintiff the amount payable to the plaintiff was only Rs. 1629/-, which the defendant-appellant was prepared to pay. The suit was also contested on the ground that the plaintiff was not registered under the Partnership Act. 41629/- out of which a sum of Rs. 40,000/- having already paid to the plaintiff the amount payable to the plaintiff was only Rs. 1629/-, which the defendant-appellant was prepared to pay. The suit was also contested on the ground that the plaintiff was not registered under the Partnership Act. 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 the plaintiff is a firm duly registered under the Partnership Act that the plaintiff had, at the asking of the defendant-appellant through defendant No. 2, sent to the defendant-appellant the goods in question and the defendant-appellant having not paid the price thereof was also liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum and, consequently, vide the impugned judgment, has decreed the suit against the defendant No. 1-appellant for the suit amount with pendent lite and future interest on the principal sum at the rate of 6% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has approached this court by filing this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. In the paint it has been specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that along with the truck in which the goods were carried from Kota to Nagaur and where the delivery was taken by the defendant-appellant, the bill (Ex. 3) was also sent to the appellant. This fact was also deposed by the plaintiff's witness, who appeared as PW-1 and also finds mention in the letter dated 12-12-1980 (Ex. 5) and this fact has not been denied either in the written statement or in the statement made on oath by the appellant's only witness Ramavtar (DW-1) and even in letter (Ex. 4) it has not been mentioned that the goods were received without any bill accompanying them. The fact, therefore, remains that the appellant not only received the goods through road transport but also received the above said bill which clearly shows that the goods in question were-sold to him by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the amount of Rs. 50,735.53.p. was claimed as the price of the goods in question. If this position was there there was no occasion for the appellant to have written letter (Ex. 50,735.53.p. was claimed as the price of the goods in question. If this position was there there was no occasion for the appellant to have written letter (Ex. 4) showing the ignorance of the purpose for which the goods had been sent by the plaintiff to the appellant. If, in fact, the appellant had not contracted to purchase the goods through the defendant No. 2 there was no necessity for him to have taken delivery of the goods and it was open to him immediately on the receipt of the goods to send back the goods to the plaintiff. It has been admitted in evidence that during the period of four days i.e. between 1-12-1980 to 4-12-1980 the price of sugar had fallen down considerably. It, therefore, appears that the appellant wanted to take advantage of the fact that there was no written order sent by him to the plaintiff and that is why letter (Ex. 4) was written to the plaintiff on 4-12-1980. It may further be seen that although the case set up by the appellant was that it was under the instructions of the defendant No. 2 that he sold the goods in the market and the defendant No.2 had taken the draft for being delivered to the plaintiff, no such evidence was produced by the appellant to support this plea and there is no material to show that the sale conducted for Rs. 43200.92 p. was under the directions of the plaintiff or that the plaintiff had ever agreed not to receive the amount of the bill but the amount that might be released after the goods were sold in the open market. Considering all these aspects of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had sent the goods to the defendant-appellant on receiving the order through the defendant No. 2 and the findings of the learned trial court in this respect calls for no interference. 5. No other point has been raised before me. 6. This appeal is without any merit and is dismissed with costs.Appeal rejected. *******