Chattar Singh v. Tej Bhan Suhail Singh Pesticides Dealers
2006-03-20
VINEY MITTAL
body2006
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. For the reasons given in the application the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The defendant is in appeal. A suit for recovery of Rs.76,370/- was filed by the plaintiff firm. It was claimed that the plaintiff firm was dealing in pesticides and the defendant was getting some credit by signing the credit memos. 3. The amount which was sought to be recovered was claimed to be the balance consideration for the goods already supplied. The defendant denied that he had ever purchased any goods from the plaintiff firm. Consequently, it was claimed that the plaintiff firm was not entitled to seek any recovery. 4. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was held that the accounts books were in possession of the plaintiff firm, and therefore, could be manipulated at any point of time. However, the defendant was held entitled to an amount of Rs.12,740/- being the payment also made for the goods which had been returned. Consequently, the said amount was decreed in favour of the defendant and a special costs of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon the plaintiff firm. 5. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that on his own showing the defendant had been purchasing goods from the plaintiff firm. 6. In these circumstances, the aforesaid fact was taken to be an admission on behalf of the defendant. It was also noticed by the learned first Appellate Court that at no point of time, the defendant had lodged any counter-claim, and therefore, the trial Court could not have decreed any amount in favour of the defendant. Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed. The judgment of the trial Court decreeing the amount in favour of the defendant was set aside. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal Dismissed.