Judgment :- N.V.Balasubramanian, J. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.1989 made in O.S.No.328 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Erode, granting a decree for a sum of Rs.25,946.70 along with 12% interest on the principal sum of Rs.25,946.70 from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. till realisation. Having been aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the Defendant has preferred this appeal. 2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,37,344.90 on the ground that the Plaintiff has supplied Pesticides to the Defendant, on credit, at Erode and the Plaintiff was sending the goods through bank on the basis of Hundies. Out of the said business, as per the accounts maintained by the Plaintiff, there is a balance of Rs.1,17,730.60. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant has not paid the amount. Hence the Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of principal sum of Rs.1,17,730.60 along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., totaling a sum of Rs.2,37,344.90. 3. The Defendant, in its defence, has raised a plea that it is not bound to pay the suit amount. In the Written Statement filed by the Defendant, the Defendant has produced its Statement of Accounts and according to the same, the Defendant was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.8,560.53. The defendant also raised a plea that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is barred by limitation. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Erode, on the basis of the above pleadings, has framed necessary issues and found that the Plaintiff has not substantiated its claim for a sum of Rs.1,17,730.60. However, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.25,946.90 as evident from the annexure to the written statement as well as the accounts produced by the Defendant itself, particularly Ex.B.11 and granted a decree for a sum of Rs.25,946.70 along with interest as stated above. It is against this Judgment and Decree the present appeal has been preferred. 5. It is against this Judgment and Decree the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr.V.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant has submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was not correct in holding that the Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,946.70 on the ground as a sum of Rs.9,797.32 is liable to be paid by the Plaintiff towards the price difference and another sum of Rs.8,088.65 is also liable to be paid by the Plaintiff towards the sub standard goods supplied by the Plaintiff and therefore, the decree amount for a total sum of Rs.25,946.70 is not sustainable on the facts of the case. The learned counsel also refers to the Written Statement as well as the documents and submitted that the Judgment of the trial Court is unsustainable on the facts of the case. 6. Mr.S.Kaithamalaikumaran, learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that there is no proof at all to show that the Plaintiff is liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,797.32 towards the Price difference in the supply of goods and there is also no evidence to show that the Plaintiff has supplied any sub standard goods for the value of Rs.8,088.65. Drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.1 as well as D.W.1, learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence to show that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the said sum towards price difference as well as towards the sub standard goods alleged to have been supplied by the Plaintiff. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent and the only point that arises for consideration is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was correct in granting decree for a sum of Rs.25,946.70 ? 8. The trial Court has rejected the case of the Plaintiff holding that it is not entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.2,37,344.90 as the Plaintiff has not produced any document in support of its plea that the Defendant is liable to pay the sum of Rs.1,17,730.60 towards principal amount of the supply of the goods made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, relied upon the documents produced by the Defendant, which clearly show that the Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,946.90. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, relied upon the documents produced by the Defendant, which clearly show that the Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,946.90. Learned Subordinate Judge relied upon Ex.B.11, which is the account maintained by the defendant for the year 1983-84 and the said document shows that the sundry creditor of the Defendant is the Plaintiff and the document further shows that the Defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,946.70 as on the 1st April, 1983. The sum of Rs.40,946.70 is a carried forward amount from the earlier year 1982-83 account and the said sum represents the amount due to the Plaintiff as on 1st April, 1983. The defendant in its written statement has admitted its liability to pay the amount to the Plaintiff in its accounts regularly maintained and in our view, when the defendant has admitted that it owes a certain sum of money to the Plaintiff, it is perfectly open to the Plaintiff to take advantage of the defendant's admission of its liability and seek a decree for the said sum. We therefore hold that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in placing reliance on Ex.B.11 to come to the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,946.70 as on 1st April, 1983 to the Plaintiff. 9. Further the defendant in admission of its liability, has issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each and one of these cheques got dishonoured, that amount is also liable to be taken into account. According to the Defendant, the defendant is liable to pay only Rs.8,560.53 after taking into account the price difference of Rs.9,797.32 as well as the sum of Rs.8,088.65 towards sub standard supply of goods alleged to have been made by the plaintiff. We have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1. Though a total sum of Rs.17,885.97 is claimed towards both the transactions, the said sum arises out of the same transaction viz., supply of sub standard goods alleged to have been made by the Plaintiff and consequently it is claimed that it is entitled to deduct the price for the sub standard quality of the goods supplied. D.W.1 in his examination has stated that sub standard goods were supplied, but no document was produced to establish that the sub standard goods were supplied by the Plaintiff. D.W.1 in his examination has stated that sub standard goods were supplied, but no document was produced to establish that the sub standard goods were supplied by the Plaintiff. D.W.1, in his evidence, has deposed that the Plaintiff has supplied the goods of sub standard quality, but the same were utilised for the business which shows that they were not rejected as of substandard quality nor there is any evidence to show that the Plaintiff was informed of the same before the use of the goods in its business. When one of the partners of the Plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, in his chief examination, he has stated that there was no supply of sub standard goods and that the claim of Rs.8,088.65 towards supply of substandard goods was not sustainable and we find that in his cross examination, nothing was elicited to show that there was price difference in the goods or that there was supply of sub standard goods. We hold that the Appellant/Defendant has miserably failed to establish that the Plaintiff has supplied goods which were of sub standard quality nor there is any admission to the effect. 10. We find that the learned Subordinate Judge, on the basis of appreciation of evidence, has come to the conclusion that the defendant has not substantiated its plea that it is entitled to deduct a portion of admitted amount towards price difference and since the plea of the Appellant is not acceptable, the appellant is not entitled to deduct the sum of Rs.9,797.32 towards price difference. In so far as the other sum of Rs.8,088.67 is concerned, there is no evidence to show that there was any sub standard supply of goods by the Plaintiff. We are therefore of the view that both the sums should not have been taken into consideration by the defendant / appellant in respect of the amount due to the Plaintiff and if both the sums are taken into consideration, the Appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,946.70 to the Respondent and the said sum is due to the respondent on the basis of the Statement of accounts of the defendant and maintained by the defendant / appellant. We hold that there is no error in the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in holding that the Appellant is liable to pay Rs.25,946.70 towards the Respondent. We hold that there is no error in the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in holding that the Appellant is liable to pay Rs.25,946.70 towards the Respondent. We also find that it is a commercial transaction and hence the award of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.25,946.70 from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. on the said sum from the date of decree till realisation is quite reasonable. 11. We do not find any error or infirmity in the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.