JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati in Money Suit No. 176/2000, the sole defendant of that suit has preferred this first appeal. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial court has decreed the suit for Rs. 5,05,333/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annim from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. 2. Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Haibargaon and also at Guwahati. The defendant is a Class-I Government Contractor of Agartala. Defendant used to purchase M.S. Rod, M.S. Steel, Angles etc. for the purpose of his business from the plaintiff company since 02.06.1998. Initially, he made deposit of Rs. 3,78,000/- with the plaintiff and thereafter started purchasing goods by making occasional payments. Plaintiff maintained a running account for the sole defendant. Upto 16.07.1999 the business between the parties continued. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is stated that the defendant purchased the articles sometimes on credit and sometimes by making payment in cash or in cheque. It is further stated that the defendant used to take delivery of the materials from the Guwahati Office and go-down of plaintiff at Athgaon, Guwahati. 3. In this way plaintiff sold goods worth of Rs. 34,45,333/- to the defendant out of which the sole defendant made payment of Rs. 29,40,000/- and thus plaintiff was due to get a sum of Rs. 5,05,333/- as on 26.11.1999. On demand, the defendant did not clear the due for which plaintiff issued a notice on 09.03.2000 through Advocate demanding Rs. 5,05,333/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Even thereafter the defendant did not make any payment but for which plaintiff instituted the suit for realisation of Rs. 5,05,333/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit along with other reliefs. 4. On being summoned, the sole defendant appeared and submitted the written statement. Although, usual objections on maintainability, cause of action and defect of parties were taken but it does not appear that the defendant denied transaction between the parties. 4. On being summoned, the sole defendant appeared and submitted the written statement. Although, usual objections on maintainability, cause of action and defect of parties were taken but it does not appear that the defendant denied transaction between the parties. Even the averments made in paragraph 4 of the plaint that defendant used to purchase goods and take delivery from Athgaon go-down of the plaintiff has not been denied by the defendant in the written statement. In the written statement, paragraph 4 of the plaint has not been touched. In the written statement, plaintiff wanted to make out a case that after dispute had arisen between them, the brother of the defendant and the director of the plaintiff sat together on 03.11.1999 for arriving at a consensus and thereupon the dispute between the parties were settled deciding that the defendant would pay Rs. 3,24,867/- only to the plaintiff towards full and final settlement. Depending on such settlement, defendant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the plaintiff on 03.11.1999 and thus only a sum of Rs. 1,24,867/- was to be paid. Even thereafter defendant made payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff and thus there was an excess payment of Rs. 3,75,133/-. But no purchase was made thereafter by the defendant. So, the plaintiff was duty bound to make refund of the excess amount. The defendant stated in paragraph 10 of the written statement that he made payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 10.11.1999 by cheques and Rs. 2,80,000/- on 17.11.1999. On 26.11.1999 another sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by cash. According to the defendant, plaintiff is not entitled to get any further amount rather he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 3,75,133/- from the plaintiff. 5. Upon such rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following 5 issues:- i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? ii) Whether this court has jurisdiction to try the suit? iii) Whether final settlement on account was made between the parties are 03.11.1999? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for Rs. 5,05,333/-? v) What any other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? 6. In course of trial, plaintiff examined 2 (two) witnesses whereas defendant examined himself as sole witness. Plaintiff adduced as many as 40 (forty) documents whereas defendant attempted to bring one hand-written note as document but it was not accepted. 5,05,333/-? v) What any other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? 6. In course of trial, plaintiff examined 2 (two) witnesses whereas defendant examined himself as sole witness. Plaintiff adduced as many as 40 (forty) documents whereas defendant attempted to bring one hand-written note as document but it was not accepted. Considering these materials and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court came to finding that the defendant could not prove the settlement on 03.11.1999 and so the defendant was liable to pay Rs. 5,05,333/- to the plaintiff. This finding was on the basis of Ext. 37, Ext. 38, Ext. 39 and Ext. 40. The learned trial court has also considered Ext. 35 and Ext. 36 for the purpose of deciding the liability of the defendant. This judgment and decree has been challenged in the present appeal by the sole defendant. 7. I have heard Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for the appellant defendant and Mr. RL Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff. I have perused the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the appeal hinges on the following point for determination: Whether plaintiff has succeeded to prove that defendant is liable to make payment of Rs. 5,05,333/- towards cost of goods supplied to him? 9. Learned trial court in the impugned judgment has held that the suit is not barred by the limitation, that the court has jurisdiction to try the suit, that there was no settlement of account on 03.11.1999. Coming to issue No. 4, it was found that plaintiff succeeded to prove its own case by adducing evidence. 10. PW 1 exhibited challans from Exts. 1 to 20 out of which Exts. 11 to 20 are the challans cum invoice and which not only projected the quantity of the goods sold but also the price of the goods sold. Most of the challans contained signature of the recipient of the goods. However, Ext. 9 and Ext. 10 does not show any indication as to whether it was delivered to somebody. However, it is not the case of the defendant that they did not receive the goods from the plaintiff as stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint. This being the position, plaintiff has succeeded to establish by Exts. However, Ext. 9 and Ext. 10 does not show any indication as to whether it was delivered to somebody. However, it is not the case of the defendant that they did not receive the goods from the plaintiff as stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint. This being the position, plaintiff has succeeded to establish by Exts. 1 to 10 that goods were supplied to the defendant. Ext. 11 to Ext. 20 are the corresponding bills which not only contained the quantum of the goods supplied but also the price of the same. On joint reading of Exts. 1 to 10 and Ext. 11 to Ext. 20 it appears that the goods were supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff vide challans Ext. 1 to Ext. 10 and thereafter bills vide Ext. 11 to Ext. 20 were placed before the defendant. So far as entitlement of the plaintiff for the aforesaid amount is concerned, the same also appears from Ext. 36. Ext. 36 is Form No. C under the Registration and Turn Over Rules, 1957 in regard to Central Sales Tax. On the back side of Ext. 36, there is mention of 11 bills for the period from 16.04.1999 to 16.07.1999 for an amount of Rs. 27,51,847/-. Defendant having put his signature on the ‘C’ Form for Rs. 27,51,847/- w.e.f. 16.04.1999 to 16.07.1999 these transactions are admitted fact. The plaintiff thereafter exhibited an extract of account as Ext. 40 to show the transaction between the parties from 02.06.1998 to 21.03.1999. This is an amount of Rs. 41,54,446/- against which defendant made payment of Rs. 34,57,960/- and thus there was a balance of Rs. 6,96,486/- as on 21.03.1999. Sale made during the subsequent period stood established vide Ext. 36 which is the Form-C under the Central Sales Tax Rules. Ext. 40 is the extract of the account maintained by the plaintiff. But these entries in this document are on the basis of various bills. For example, first entry made on 04.06.1998 is on the basis of Ext. 20(Q). Similarly, entry dated 06.06.1998 for Rs. 1,48,676/- is supported by Ext. 20(P). Third entry made on 08.12.1998 is on the basis of Ext. 20(O). Fourth entry made on 06.01.1999 is on the basis of Ext. 20(N). Entry dated 22.01.1999 is on the basis of Ext. 20(M). Entry dated 12.1.1999 is based on Ext.20(L). Entry dated 18.01.1999 is based on Ext. 20(K). 1,48,676/- is supported by Ext. 20(P). Third entry made on 08.12.1998 is on the basis of Ext. 20(O). Fourth entry made on 06.01.1999 is on the basis of Ext. 20(N). Entry dated 22.01.1999 is on the basis of Ext. 20(M). Entry dated 12.1.1999 is based on Ext.20(L). Entry dated 18.01.1999 is based on Ext. 20(K). Similarly, the other entries were based on Ext. 20(series) and that being the position, the claim made by the plaintiff are not only based on Books of Account but also supported by other documents, challans cum invoice. Examination as to whether entries made in the Books of Accounts were maintained by way of regular course of business are the only proof of the claim of the plaintiff became necessary in view of the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act. But plaintiff appears to be careful enough to bring on record the challans cum records vide Ext. 20 (series). The defendant in this regard did not display due care and caution and no attempt has been made to disown the challans/invoice or to deny delivery of the goods. Having perused the examination in chief and the cross examination of all the three witnesses examined by both sides, it appears that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove its Books of Accounts by adducing supporting documents. The defendant not having denied receipt of materials from the plaintiff on the basis of the challans and invoice, it has been proved by Preponderance of Probability that plaintiff supplied goods worth of Rs. 34,45,333/- and the defendant made payment of Rs. 29,40,000/- in all. Even the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- claimed to have been paid by the defendant at the last stage are also borne by Books of Accounts like Ext. 35 and Ext. 40. The learned trial court having considered this aspect of the matter arrived at the finding that defendant is yet to make payment of Rs. 5,05,333/- to the plaintiff in all and accordingly, decreed the suit. Learned trial court has taken a lenient view in regard to interest and restricted the same at the rate of 6% per annum only and that too, from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. That being the position, there is nothing in the impugned judgment and decree which can be interfered with by this court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. That being the position, there is nothing in the impugned judgment and decree which can be interfered with by this court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, is devoid of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. 12. At this stage, it is mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of admission of this appeal, the impugned judgment and decree was stayed by this court subject to the condition that appellant would deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the learned trial court. Accordingly, the appellant deposited the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the same has already been withdrawn by the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the defendant shall make payment of the balance sum along with interest as per decree.