P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) INTRODUCTION The unsuccessful defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7-7-1994 made in O. S. No. 28 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, had preferred the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit specified supra against the appellants/ defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,18,490-60 ps. due on business dealings with future interest and costs of the suit. The trial Court, on the strength of the evidence of P. Ws. l and 2 D. W. I and Exs. A-1 to A-37 and exs. B-1 to B-12, ultimately came to the conclusion that respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 1,26,187-35 ps. less rs. 25,133-80 ps. (paid after filing of the suit) with proportionate costs and with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. Submissions of learned Counsel for appellants ( 3 ) SRI R. V. Prasad, the learned counsel representing the appellants/ defendants would submit that the mere fact that there was no reply given to ex. A-3 cannot be taken as though respondent/plaintiff had established the suit claim. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of p. W. I and had pointed out that by his evidence it cannot be said that respondent/ plaintiff had established supply of goods and receipt thereof by the appellants/ defendants. The learned Counsel also would point out that the evidence of p. W. 2 may not, in any way, further improve the case, even otherwise the counsel would maintain that Exs. A-13 and a-14 are self-serving documents. At any rate these were not addressed by the appellants/defendants. The mere fact that p. W. 2 was examined would not in any way improve the case of respondent/ plaintiff. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of d. W. I and Exs. Bl to B-12 in general and ex. B-5 the purchase register in particular. The learned Counsel also would comment that the fact that these were not entered in the purchase register would definitely belie the stand taken by the respondent/ plaintiff. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of d. W. I and Exs. Bl to B-12 in general and ex. B-5 the purchase register in particular. The learned Counsel also would comment that the fact that these were not entered in the purchase register would definitely belie the stand taken by the respondent/ plaintiff. Submissions of learned Counsel for respondent ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri Lakshmi Narayana reddy, learned Counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff had taken this Court through the pleadings of the respective parties and would maintain that the commission agency of P. W. 2 is not in controversy, since the same was admitted even in the written statement and this fact was never seriously contraverted even by d. W. I. The learned Counsel also would submit that Ex. A-3 dated 7-1-1992 the registered legal notice was in fact served on the appellants/defendants and they had not chosen to give any reply. Apart from the evidence of P. W. I, the evidence of p. W. 2 also is available on record. The learned Counsel also would maintain that it is not as though P. W. 2 is an interested witness in respondent/plaintiff alone. The learned Counsel would point out that P. W. 2 deposed that he had acted as a commission agent for defendants also. In this view of the matter the evidence of P. W. 2 would assume importance, which had well supported the evidence of P. W. I in this regard. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Exs. A-13 and A-14 and had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard. ( 5 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 6 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants hereinafter. Pleadings of the parties ( 7 ) THE plaintiff filed O. S. No. 28 of 1992 on the file of the Additional subordinate Judge, Kurnool for recovery of rs. 2,18,490-60ps. due on the business dealings with future interest and costs of the suit. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the second defendant is running the business in the name and style Satya sai Chemicals and Seeds Company" and he is the Managing Director of the said concern. 2,18,490-60ps. due on the business dealings with future interest and costs of the suit. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the second defendant is running the business in the name and style Satya sai Chemicals and Seeds Company" and he is the Managing Director of the said concern. The defendants are the customers of the plaintiffs company purchasing on credit extracted groundnut cakes and extracted sunflower cakes from the year 1987. The business transaction was arranged by the brokers Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara commission Agents, Brodipet, Guntur. According to the business usage and the contract agreed between the parties the defendants have to pay interest at 24% per annum on the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants, if the amount is not paid within 30 days of the delivery of the goods to the defendant. The defendants are not regular in paying the amounts to the plaintiff on the material supplied to them from 14-1-1990. The defendants are having the account with the plaintiffs company. The defendants are due to the company Rs. 1,26,187,35 ps. as on 5-12-1991. The last payment made by the defendant is Rs. 24,820-05 ps. on 5-12-1991. The ledger extract, which is maintained in the regular course of business by the plaintiff, and the interest due by the defendants, is calculated in the extract filed along with the plaint. The interest due to the plaintiffs company is Rs. 92,303-25 ps. as on 5-12-1991. In spite of the repeated demands by the plaintiffs company through its broker mentioned above and telephone messages, the defendants failed to pay the amount to the plaintiffs company. Finally on 7-1-1992 the plaintiff had issued a registered notice to the defendants for the payment of the money due to the company. There is no reply from the defendants. The defendants are not agriculturists and are not entitled for the benefits of any agricultural Debt Relief Act. The defendants are the businessmen and they are Income tax Assessees. ( 8 ) THE first defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the second defendant. It was pleaded in the written statement of the first defendant as hereunder: the allegations made in Para 3 of the plaint are not fully correct. It is true that this defendant is the customer of the plaintiffs company purchasing extracted groundnut cakes and extracted sunflower case from 11-7-1987 onwards. It was pleaded in the written statement of the first defendant as hereunder: the allegations made in Para 3 of the plaint are not fully correct. It is true that this defendant is the customer of the plaintiffs company purchasing extracted groundnut cakes and extracted sunflower case from 11-7-1987 onwards. It is also true to say that the business transaction was arranged by the brokers Sri Lakshmi venkateswara Commission Agents, Guntur. It is false to say that according to the business usage and the contract agreed between the parties, the defendant has to pay the interest at 24% per annum on the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant if the amount is not paid within 30 days of the delivery of the goods to the defendants. It is false to say that the defendant is not regular in paying the amounts to the plaintiff on the material supplied to them from 14-1-1990. It is false to say that the defendant is due to the plaintiff-company Rs. 1,26,187-35 ps. on 5-12-1991. It is submitted that apart from the payment of Rs. 24,820-05 ps. under d. D. No. 321768 dated 4-12-1991 which was alleged to have recorded by the plaintiff on 5-12-1991, this defendant paid Rs. 25,198-80ps. by D. D. No. 321968 dated 27-2-1991 on 27-2-1992. So he is not due any amount to the plaintiff for the transactions made by the defendant with the plaintiffs company. The ledger extract filed by the plaintiff claiming interest is not correct. It is humbly submitted that this defendant never agreed to pay any interest on the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is false to say that the interest due to the plaintiffs company is rs. 92,303-25 ps. as on 5-12-1991. It is humbly submitted that this defendant has not received the goods under bill numbers shown below and their amounts. ( 21 ) IN the light of the findings recorded supra this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court and the decree made in pursuance thereof by the trial Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity and accordingly the appeal shall stand dismissed with costs.