JUDGMENT This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,35,672.66 p. along with interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 18% per annum on account of price of goods sold and delivered but not fully paid. 2. Plaintiff carried on the business of manufacture and sale of polythene and polypoplene tubes under the name and style of ‘Indo-plastic’ and the defendant No. 1 was a firm and defendants Nos. 2, 3 & 4 were its partners. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 4 died and substitution was not considered necessary. Plaintiff's case is that between the period 25th April, 1985 and 9th June, 1986 plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendants 21,624 450 kgs. of polythene tubes on diverse dates valued at Rs. 5,21,295.10 p. particulars whereof being apparent from the schedule-A annexed to the plaint. At the time of delivery of the said goods the plaintiff is said to have submitted to the defendants chalans of each and every consignment, which were accepted by or on behalf of the defendants. Bills were raised with copies of the receipted chalans and the defendants also accepted the same. So far the defendants have paid only Rs. 2,20.000/- by cheques on different dates, the last of such payment of Rs. 10,000/- having been made on 8th September, 1986. The defendants allegedly issued two cheques dated 6th February, 1989 and 30th January, 1989 for Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- respectively by way of further payment. The cheques were, however dishonoured by the Banker of the defendants. Thus the defendants are liable and the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant the balance of the price amounting to Rs 3,01,295.10p. The plaintiff has claimed interest on the said sum of Rs. 3,01.295.10 p. from the respective dates of delivery until realisation at the rate of 18% per annum being the rate of interest which is charged by the nationalised Banks in respect of commercial transactions. Such interest calculated upto 25th February, 1989 amounts to Rs. 1,34,377.56p. As in spite of demand the defendants failed and neglected to pay the said principal and interest to the plaintiff the present suit for recovery of the amount had to be instituted. 3. The defendant's case is that the partnership between defendant Nos. Such interest calculated upto 25th February, 1989 amounts to Rs. 1,34,377.56p. As in spite of demand the defendants failed and neglected to pay the said principal and interest to the plaintiff the present suit for recovery of the amount had to be instituted. 3. The defendant's case is that the partnership between defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was dissolved by a deed of dissolution dated 24th February, 1989, in terms whereof the defendant No. 2 became the sole proprietor of the defendant No. 1 since the said date and that the suit filed on 9th of March of 1989 is bad in law as the firm was not in existence on that date. However, the defendant admits that the partnership firm had dealings and transanctions with the plaintiff from April 1985 tin 18th February, 1986 during which period plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendants 12504.300 kgs. of polythene tubes valued at Rs. 2,95,776.50 p. as fully set out in annexure A to the written statement. It has been alleged that out of the said sum the defendants paid the sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- only by account payee cheques. The defendant admits that Rs. 65,776.50 p. is still due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant has further alleged that defendant No. 1's accounts with the Central Bank of India, Hatkhola Branch was last operated on 11th April, 1981. However, the defendant deposited with the plaintiff two blank cheques on the said Branch duly signed by the defendant and the plaintiff presented the said two cheques filling in big amounts and name and date for payment falsely. But since the account was dormant the cheques could not be honoured by the Bank. Thus issuance of two cheques dated 6th February, 1989 and 30th January, 1989 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and 55,000/- respectively by way of further payment does not arise, is also defendant's case. 4. Upon pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled :- (1) Did the plain tiff' supply the entire quantity of polythene tubes (21,624.450 kgs.) to the defendant as claimed in the plaint? If not what was the quantity supplied? (2) Did the plaintiff raise bills for the said materials upon the defendant? (3) Is there any balance price to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff? (4) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for Rs. If not what was the quantity supplied? (2) Did the plaintiff raise bills for the said materials upon the defendant? (3) Is there any balance price to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff? (4) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for Rs. 4,35,672.66 p. against the defendants? (5) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled? Decision: Issues No. 1 to 4 : 5. These issues being inter-linked are taken up together. The relationship of vendor and vendee is admitted. Whereas plaintiff's case is that the transactions took place between 25th April, 1985 and 9th June, 1986 when 21,624.450 kgs. valued at Rs. 5,21,295.10 p. were sold and delivered to the defendants, the defendant's case is that the transactions took place between April 1985 till 18th Feb., 1986 when plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant 12504.300 kgs. of the value of Rs. 2,95,776.50 p. Again whereas the plaintiff alleges that the defendant paid Rs. 2,20,000/- the defendant's case is that they paid 2,30,000/-. It is defendant's case that the partnership came to an end on 24th Feb, 1989 whereafter defendant No. 2 became the sole proprietor of the firm. Then again whereas plaintiff alleges that the defendant by way of part payment issued two cheques dated 30th Jan., 1989 and 6th Feb., 1989 for Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 55,000/- respectively which were dishonoured by the Bank, the defendant's case is that two signed blank cheques were kept with the plaintiff as security and plaintiff inserted false amounts and tried to encash the cheques but the account being dormant the cheques could not be cashed. During the hearing of the suit what has since come to light which is controversial is whether the defendant issued a cheque dated 2nd March, 1991 for Rs. 1 lakh only in favour of the plaintiff with the letter of the same date acknowledging issue of the two cheques dated 30th January, 1989 and 6th February, 1989 towards part payment and regretting that the above two cheques were returned by the Banker unpaid and enclosing a fresh cheque for Rs. 1 lakh and furthers admitting the balance unpaid amount of Rs. 3,35,672.66 p. together with interest. 6. The intimations from the Central Bank of India, Hatkhola Branch, regarding dishonour of the cheques for Rs. 45,000/-, Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh are on the record as exhibits. 1 lakh and furthers admitting the balance unpaid amount of Rs. 3,35,672.66 p. together with interest. 6. The intimations from the Central Bank of India, Hatkhola Branch, regarding dishonour of the cheques for Rs. 45,000/-, Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh are on the record as exhibits. While executions of the earlier two cheques are admitted, the execution of the latter cheque is disputed. 7. It appears that on the basis of plaintiff's notice dated 19th March, 1991 under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act upon the defendants regarding dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 1 lakh and defendants reply thereto dated 2nd March, 1991 acknowledging issuance of the earlier two cheques and regretting that the cheque for Rs. 1 lakh could not be encashed and simultaneously acknowledging liability for the balance sum of Rs. 3,35,672.66 p., plaintiff filed a petition for judgment upon admission and this court granted a decree against which the defendant went on Appeal and it appears that the Learned Division Bench disposed of the Appeal by directing that the Appellant would pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- by instalments to the Advocate-on-Record of the respondent (plaintiff) who shall keep the same in a fixed deposit account to the credit of the suit and that for default in payment of any two instalments or the last instalment the Trial Court's decree would be executable for the balance sum and upon such payments the decree would stand set aside. It is submitted by both sides that the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- was duly deposited by the defendant/Appellant. In his examination-in-chief the defendant No. 2 as the only defence witness admitted that the signature appearing in the two cheques for Rs. 45000/- and Rs. 55,000/- belong to him but other writings were not in his hand and that the letter dated 2nd March, 1991 addressed to the plaintiff is a forged document. He says he has no knowledge about issuance of the cheques for Rs. 1 lakh and the letter dated 2nd March, 1991. It appears that before the Appellate Court the defendant also sought to make out that the letter and the cheque were fabricated. It further appears that before the Learned Trial Judge as also before the Appellate Court submissions were made that six cheques belonging to the defendant had been missing. 1 lakh and the letter dated 2nd March, 1991. It appears that before the Appellate Court the defendant also sought to make out that the letter and the cheque were fabricated. It further appears that before the Learned Trial Judge as also before the Appellate Court submissions were made that six cheques belonging to the defendant had been missing. It is clear that defendant's case in this respect is full of controversy and inconsistent. Whereas at one point of time he says his account with the CBI, Hatkhola Branch, was a dormant account which is rather corroborated by Bank's intimation dated 8.2.89 regarding reason for the return of the cheque which is that the minimum balance was being maintained for the last three years. This fact would not justify keeping two blank cheques with the supplier as security for the price. At other time he says six cheques were missing from his Cheque Book for which an intimation was given to the Bank and he was called by the Manager of the Bank. Such intimation apparently was given long after institution of the suit and what was the out-come of the discussion between him and the Bank Manager has not been disclosed. Nor is there anything to show that any information to the police was given regarding missing of the cheques. Also when it is defendant's case that the letter dated 2nd March, 1991 is a forged one, I do not understand why the defendant should not take steps to establish with the help of a hand-writing expert that his purported signature on the letter and the cheque are forged. The story as to forgery regarding the letter and the cheque appears dubious. 8. However, this is not that I have started examining this case with the onus having been shifted upon the defendant to disprove plaintiff's case. Plaintiff always stands or falls on the strength of his own case and not upon the weakness of the defendant. But because the defendant admitted the relationship and initial transactions with the particular case as sought to be made out in the written statement, the question that would arise for consideration is how far the defendant has succeeded in establishing its own case. 9. But because the defendant admitted the relationship and initial transactions with the particular case as sought to be made out in the written statement, the question that would arise for consideration is how far the defendant has succeeded in establishing its own case. 9. In any case plaintiff on oath without being discredited by cross-examination in respect of any point and aspect of his case has made out that the Bills and Chalans as disclosed in Annexure-A to the plaint and exhibited in the suit go to show that consignments were delivered and duly received by the defendant or persons on behalf of the defendant. The defendants have sought to deny the signatures of the persons who have apparently received the consignment saying that they are not his employees but connected papers and documents showing who were in his employment during the material time have not been disclosed or exhibited. When bills were admitted to the extent of certain amount, the receipted chalans which ought to have been forwarded to the defendant along with the bills should have been forth-coming from the custody of the defendant as well. But the defendant has not disclosed any such receipted chalans. If such receipted chalans were produced by the defendant, it would have shown whether the persons who appear to have signed on plaintiff's copy of the chalan were or were not identical persons. Merely saying that the said persons, viz. Tara, Shewcharan etc. were not in his employment would not disprove plaintiff's case, as apparent is to be taken as real unless the contrary is shown. 10. In this connection what comes up for consideration is whether the transactions continued from 24th April, 1985 to 9th June, 1986 as claimed by the plaintiff or from April 1985 till 18th February, 1986 and further whether defendant's story of dissolution of the partnership can have any impact on the facts of this case. If the relationship ended in February 1986 when the defendant would owe and liable for Rs. 65,000/- only to the plaintiff, there would be no question of issuance of the cheques on 30th January, 1989 and 6th February, 1989 total amounting to Rs. 1 lakh. If the relationship ended in February 1986 when the defendant would owe and liable for Rs. 65,000/- only to the plaintiff, there would be no question of issuance of the cheques on 30th January, 1989 and 6th February, 1989 total amounting to Rs. 1 lakh. The case of the said two blank cheques being kept as security also falls to the ground because the account upon which the cheques were drawn had been admittedly lying dormant with the minimum balance at credit for more than three years last. The issuance of plaintiff's notice dated 19th March, 1991 under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act cannot be denied and the issuance of the third cheque accompanying the letter dated 2nd March, 1991 is quite in keeping with the plaintiff's case of the dishonour of the earlier two cheques. The dissolution of the partnership is admittedly not registered with the Register of firms and accordingly cannot have any legal effect, the partners would be continuing to be liable towards liability of the firm. Plaintiff's case that the defendant defaulted in paying the price in full for the consignment received by it is borne out by the receipted chalans and the audited balance-sheet with details of sundry debtors of the plaintiff company read with the unshakeable evidence of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant No. 2 as the only witness miserably failed in his deposition about alleged missing of six cheques and alleged keeping of two blank cheques as security when, in fact, the account was dormant with the minimum cash balance at credit. Admittedly consignments cannot be sent without chalans and delivery would not be effected unless a copy of the chalan is receipted. Whereas plaintiff is producing receipted chalans the defendant who has received a copy of the receipted chalan along with the bill raised subsequently has not produced a single such receipted chalan, a fact which alone belies the defendant's case that not all the transactions as alleged by the plaintiff during the period from 25th April, 1985 to 9th June, 1986 but only from April 1985 to February 1986 took place between the parties. 11. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and materials on record it is to be held that the transactions took place between 25th April, 1985 to 9th June, 1986 when plaintiff supplied 21,624.450 kgs. of polythene tubes valued at Rs. 11. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and materials on record it is to be held that the transactions took place between 25th April, 1985 to 9th June, 1986 when plaintiff supplied 21,624.450 kgs. of polythene tubes valued at Rs. 5,21,295.10 p. The defendant's case as to dissolution of partnership has no legal effect as the dissolution is not registered. The story of keeping blank cheques as security as also the missing of the cheques as sought to be made out during trial appears false and fabricated. Also the case of the defendant that not Rs. 2,20,000/- but Rs. 2,30,000/- was paid by them do not stand to scrutiny as the defendant has not disclosed any document in support of the alleged payment of 10,000/- rupees more. The issues are answered accordingly as noted below :- Issue No. 1; Yes, the plaintiff supplied entire quantity of 21,624.450 kgs. Issue No. 2; Yes. Issue No. 3, Yes, the balance amounts to Rs. 3,01,295.10 p. Issue No. 4; Yes, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for Rs. 4,35,672.66 p. against the defendants. Issue No. 5; In the result the suit succeeds. Therefore, it is ordered that the suit be decreed on contest with cost. Plaintiff do recover Rs. 4,35,672.66 p. from the defendants. Interim interest and interest on judgment @ 18% per annum on the decretal dues are also allowed.