Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed by the second defendant in the suit as against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2008 passed by the learned the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.9685 of 2006, which was filed for recovery of money. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus: (i) The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit as against the defendants for recovery of money with the following prayer: "to pass judgement and decree against the defendants jointly and severally and in favour of the plaintiff; a) for a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- b) interest at the rate of 30% p.a.on Rs.5,38,070/-from the date of suit till the date of realization in full; (c) costs of the suit." (ii) The defendants separately filed the written statement resisting the suit. Whereupon issues were framed. (iii) During trial, on the plaintiffs side, the senior official of its firm was examined as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A28 were marked. On the defendants side no one was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. (iv) Ultimately, the suit was dismissed as against D1 and decreed as against D2. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the trial Court as against D2, the appeal has been filed by him on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/D2, by placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would pilot his arguments, drawing the attention of this Court to various portions of the records, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) M/s. Sri Lakshmi Vilasam Press was a partnership firm, of which, the father-Murugan and son-M.Karthigeyan were partners. The plaintiff supplied papers to the said partnership firm and not to D2 personally. (b) Suppressing the material facts, the plaintiff filed the suit and the trial Court, ignoring the salient features, simply mulcted the second defendant with the liability to pay the entire amount, leaving D1 scot free. (c) In fact, it was D1, who received the consignments and also used them, but now he turned turtle and also got wriggled out of his liability, warranting interference in this appeal. (c) In fact, it was D1, who received the consignments and also used them, but now he turned turtle and also got wriggled out of his liability, warranting interference in this appeal. (d) The additional documents sought to be filed before this Court are to the effect that there was partnership between the father and the son, namely, D1 and D2 and the nomenclature of the partnership was M/s.Sri Lakshmi Vilasam Press. The invoices marked on the side of the plaintiff would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that the indent was made only in the name of the partnership firm. Goods were supplied also accordingly. In such a case, the question of D2, who already segregated and separated himself from the partnership under registered document, cannot be mulcted with liability. (e) The additional documents also would show as to how D1 betrayed D2, his own son by misusing the faith reposed by the latter on the former. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant/D2 would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court as against D2. 6. In a bid to torpedo and mincemeat the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellant/D2, the learned counsel for R1/the plaintiff would advance his arguments, a thumbnail sketch of the same would run thus: (i) Written statement is as vague as vagueness could be, and there is no whisper about the alleged partnership etc., as put forth before this Court during arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/D2. (ii) D2 has not even chosen to examine himself as a witness and in such a case, quite antithetical to the stand taken by D2 before the trial Court, he cannot be allowed to set up a new plea by filing additional documents and if it is done so, the entire legal proceedings so far undertaken by the plaintiff would be set at naught and it would lead to travesty of justice and ultimately would result in causing loss to the public money. (iii) D2 has not even chosen to reply to the pre-suit notice issued by the plaintiff, despite he having received the notice. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would pray for the dismissal of the appeal. 7. (iii) D2 has not even chosen to reply to the pre-suit notice issued by the plaintiff, despite he having received the notice. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would pray for the dismissal of the appeal. 7. The points for consideration are as under: (i) Whether the appellant/D2, who has not raised any plea in the written statement in pari materia with the pleas raised before this appellate Court and figured himself as a witness during trial could be permitted to raise such new pleas by filing additional documents, as though the supply of goods was made by the plaintiff to the partnership firm comprised of the father-Murugan and the son-Karthigeyan? (ii) Whether the interlocutory application filed seeking permission to file additional documents could be ordered? (iii) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgement and decree of the trial Court? 8. Indubitably and indisputably or at least the undeniable facts would run thus The plaintiff is a public sector undertaking and through its agents, the consignees are expected to place indents. Whereupon, the plaintiff would supply consignments. Murugan-the first defendant is the father of Karthigeyan-the second defendant. The plaintiff cited D1 as the Proprietor of M/s.Sri Lakshmi Vilasam Press and D2 as the Proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Press. The invoices, as revealed by Exs.A1 to A10, no doubt are in the name of M/s.Sri Lakshmi Vilasam Press. Whereas, Exs.A11 to A15 would show that the consignments were received by M/s.Sri Lakshmi Press, admittedly, owned by Karthigeyan-D2/appellant as proprietor. Exs.A20 and 21-the acknowledgement letters would reveal that D2-Karthigeyan unambiguously and unequivocally, without mincing words admitted his liability and prayed time for payment to the plaintiff. 9. Only Ex.B1-the letter written by M/s.Vimala Paper Company-the agent of the plaintiff, to D1 was marked by D2 during cross-examination of P.W.2. The trial Court appropriately and correctly observed that Ex.B1 was sent by M/s.Vimala Paper Company to D1 by pointing out that the dues would be recovered from D2, as there erupted some mistake in specifying the name in the indents. Ex.B1 in no way speaks the case of the D2 by itself and that too in the wake of the aforesaid evidence against D2. 10. At this juncture, I recollect the maxim "Judicis est judicare secundum allegata et probata - It is the duty of a judge to decide according to facts alleged and proved. 11. Ex.B1 in no way speaks the case of the D2 by itself and that too in the wake of the aforesaid evidence against D2. 10. At this juncture, I recollect the maxim "Judicis est judicare secundum allegata et probata - It is the duty of a judge to decide according to facts alleged and proved. 11. Filing written statement is not an empty formality under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. A bare perusal of the written statement filed by D2 would pellucidly and palpably make the point clear that D2 never whispered anything about the existence of any partnership under the name and style of M/s.Sri Lakshmi Vilasam Press, of which, the plaintiff and D2 were partners. All that D2 pleaded in the written statement, was to the effect that he was not liable to pay the suit amount; that the agent of the plaintiff, namely, M/s.Vimala Paper was not a party to the suit and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. He also denied the factum of he having made acknowledgements. 12. On the plaintiffs side, its representative was examined as P.W.1 and the representative of the said Vimala Papers-the agent of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A28 were marked and thereby the plaintiff positively proved the facts to the effect that it was D2, who received the consignments sent by the plaintiff and that D2 had put his signature as well as his business seal as M/s.Sri Lakshmi Press, which is unassailably D2s proprietary concern. 13. It is therefore crystal clear that D2, irrespective of the fact that those invoices were in the name of M/s.Sri Lakshmi Vilasam Press, received the consignments under his signature and business seal and the acknowledgement letters also, as correctly pointed out by the trial Court, were sent by D2, acknowledging his liability. D2 did not figure himself as a witness, so as to torpedo or rebut the positive evidence placed on record on the plaintiffs side. The plaintiff issued pre-suit notice to D2, to find no response from him. 14. My mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following maxim: 15. Wherefore, from the conduct of D2 in not adducing evidence in support of his plea, his defence could only be negatived and not countenanced. 16. The plaintiff issued pre-suit notice to D2, to find no response from him. 14. My mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following maxim: 15. Wherefore, from the conduct of D2 in not adducing evidence in support of his plea, his defence could only be negatived and not countenanced. 16. At this juncture, I recollect the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court In re dubia magis infitiatio quam affirmatio intelligenda -In a doubtful matter, the negation is to be understood rather than the affirmation. (i) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1341 ( Iswar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera and another) "(29.) Applying the principles stated above to the instant case, it would be found that in the instant case also the appellant had abstained from the witness-box and had not made any statement on oath in support of his pleading set out in the written statement. An adverse inference has, therefore, to be drawn against him. Since it was specifically stated by Respondent 2 in his statement on oath that it was at the instance of the appellant that he had issued the cheque on the account of Respondent 1 in Central Bank of India Ltd., Sambalpur Branch and the appellant, admittedly, had encashed that cheque, an inference has to be drawn against the appellant that what he stated in the written statement was not correct. In these circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit of Respondent 1 in its entirety and passing a decree against the appellant also." (emphasis supplied) (ii) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441 (Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another) "(15.) It was Defendant 1 who contended that the sale deed executed by Defendant 2 in favour of the plaintiff was fictitious and the whole transaction was a bogus transaction as only Rs.500 were paid as sale consideration to Defendant 2. He further claimed that payment of Rs.4500 to Defendant 2 at his home before the registration of the deed was wholly incorrect. This plea was not supported by Defendant 1 as he did not enter the witness-box. He did not state the facts pleaded in the written statement on oath in the trial court and avoided the witness-box so that he may not be cross-examined. This, by itself, is enough to reject the claim that the transaction of sale between Defendant 2 and the plaintiff was a bogus transaction. He did not state the facts pleaded in the written statement on oath in the trial court and avoided the witness-box so that he may not be cross-examined. This, by itself, is enough to reject the claim that the transaction of sale between Defendant 2 and the plaintiff was a bogus transaction. (17.) Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh case. The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virendra Nath held that if a party abstains from entering the witness-box, it would give rise to an adverse inference against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 against a party who did not enter the witness-box."(emphasis supplied) 17. A bare poring over and perusal of the above precedents would clearly show that D2, who shunned the witness box cannot be heard to contend that he is having a different case and that too, a case different from what he pleaded in the written statement. 18. The trial Court, considering the pro et contra and also the documentary evidence clearly held that consignments were taken by D2 individually and that he is liable to pay the same and in such a case, the question of entertaining additional evidence, without any pleadings, as though there were partnership firm and that in respect of the partnership alone, allegedly the goods were received by D2 etc. does not arise. Accordingly, the points are decided as against the appellant/D2 and in favour of the plaintiff. 19. does not arise. Accordingly, the points are decided as against the appellant/D2 and in favour of the plaintiff. 19. In the result, I could see no perversity or illegality in the judgement and decree of the trial Court and accordingly, I could see no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.