JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. This long pending First Appeal of 2010 under the provisions of Section 96 read with Order XLI of the C.P. Code, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2010, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur. 2. The defendant/appellant's case, precisely is that the plaintiff respondent firm instituted Money Suit No. 18/2008, on 10.11.2008, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, wherein, it was stated that as per Orders placed by the defendant/plaintiff, the plaintiff respondent used to supply petroleum products and thereafter, submitted bills for payment and the defendant/appellant used to make the payments on the furnished bill amounts till 21.06.2006. In course of continuation of such practice of supply of petroleum products, a sum of Rs. 11,14,939.85/- became due to the plaintiff/respondent firm till 21.06.2006 and the defendant/appellant issued 2 (two) cheques amounting to Rs. 1,36,764/- towards part payment of the aforesaid outstanding amount. However, the said cheques were dishonoured by the Bank for insufficient funds. Later on, the dispute was compromised between the parties on 22.06.2006 by executing a deed of compromise. Thereafter, the business of selling and purchasing of petroleum products between the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant resumed and another amount of Rs. 9,50,216.41/- remained unpaid by the defendant/appellant upto 31.3.08 as shown below:- Statement of account w.e.f. 22.06.2006 to 31.03.2008 (i) Opening balance to be paid to the plaintiff as per agreement made by the plaintiff and the defendant on 22.06.2006 Rs. 11,14,939.85/- (ii) Amount to be paid against 129 Nos. of Bills Rs.44,90,797.48/- (iii) Amount of cost for the proceeding of C.R. Case No. 16/06 as mentioned in the agreement Rs. 15,000.00/- Total Rs.56,20,737.33/- (iv) Statement of amounts paid Rs. 35,20,520.92/- Amount of payment against the bill amount (v) Amount paid against the amount as per agreement Rs. 11,50,000.00/- Total Rs. 46,70,520.00/- Balance amount remained unpaid Rs. 9,50,216.41/-. 3. The plaintiff respondent contended that the aforesaid outstanding sum of Rs.9,50,216.41/- still remains due from the defendant/appellant as per terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement, dated 22.06.2006 and the defendant/appellant has ceased the business transactions with the plaintiff respondent with effect from 1.4.2008. Hence, the suit was instituted for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,50,216.41/-with interest thereon @12% per annum till realization of the amount from the defendant/appellants. 4. Hence, the suit was instituted for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,50,216.41/-with interest thereon @12% per annum till realization of the amount from the defendant/appellants. 4. The defendant/appellant contested the suit by filing a written statement, dated 13.02.2009, on the grounds, inter-alia, that the suit is barred by limitation; that the suit is not maintainable in its present form and manner; that the suit is bad for non-compliance of order IV Rule 1 & 2; that there is no cause of action for the suit; that the suit is barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and that no amount is due to the plaintiff respondent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with cost. 5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, as above, and after hearing the learned counsel of both the sides, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether there is cause of action for the plaintiff suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiff suit is barred by principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree to recover of Rs. 9,50,216.41 /- from the defendant for selling of petroleum products to the defendant company? 5. To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to law and equity?". 6. In order to substantiate the claim, the plaintiff respondent firm examined one witness, namely, Ashok Bhattarai (P W. 1), who is its Proprietor and exhibited as many as 159 documents, while the defendant/appellant cross-examined him. The defendant/appellant did not produce any witness. 7. Mr. S. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant submitted that the learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence, oral and documentary, from proper perspective decreed the suit inasmuch as, the impugned judgment does not speak of proper verification of the exhibited documents, most of which are not pertained to the defendant/appellant's tea estate and as such, relied on inadmissible evidence. According to Mr. Gogoi, the learned trial Court admitted in evidence Ext.2, the statement of accounts is in loose sheet from which ought not have admitted as it is not a book of account, within the meaning Of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. Mr. According to Mr. Gogoi, the learned trial Court admitted in evidence Ext.2, the statement of accounts is in loose sheet from which ought not have admitted as it is not a book of account, within the meaning Of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Gogoi further submitted that "the plaintiff respondent has not examined any witness, who made the entries in Ext.2 and also the persons, who actually delivered the petroleum products and who received delivery on behalf of the defendant/appellant in proof of the entries made in the book of accounts as well as the person, who made the entries. Mr. Gogoi also emphasized that the plaintiff appellant has not even produced and exhibited the purported supply orders of the defendant/appellant's tea estate and that P W. 1, being the proprietor of the plaintiff appellant firm, cannot have the personal knowledge about those facts and transactions that had taken place between his employees and the employees of the tea estate. Therefore, Mr. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant, the learned trial Court ought to have dismissed the plaintiff respondent's suit. 8. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that by filing the written statement, the defendant/appellant has not made specific denial of liability of the amount claimed by the plaintiff respondent, herein. Drawing attention of this Court to the petition No. 881 /09 under Order II Rule 14 and 16 of the C.P. Code, dated 29.06.2009, Mr. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that a direction was sought to the defendant/appellant to produce the original documents mentioned therein, which was allowed but due to non-production of the same, the learned trial Court, by orders, dated 12.8.2009 and 20.11.2009, permitted the plaintiff respondent to produce the secondary evidence. On the other hand, the defendant/appellant has avoided the witness box nor challenged the plaintiff respondent's claim. Mr. Chakraborty, however, submitted that the documents, which are exhibited as Ext. Nos. 5 (16), 5 (20), 5 (21), 5 (30), 5 (34), 5 (41), 5 (50), 5 (57), 5 (58), 5 (67), 5 (68), 5 (80), 5 (81), 5 (82), 5 (95), 5 (96), 5 (97), 5 (103), 5 (104), 5 (105) and 5(117), which do not pertain to the defendant/appellant's tea estate were exhibited through inadvertence and those are not included in Ext. 3. 9. 3. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it is found that the learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff respondent and accordingly, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.9,50,216.41/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty thousand Two hundred Sixteen and Forty one paise) only from the defendant/appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid decreetal amount from the date of institution of the suit till recovery with cost of the suit. The learned trial Court directed the defendant/appellant to pay the aforesaid decreetal amount within a period of 3 months from the date of the judgment and decree i.e. 19.02.2010. 10. The defendant/appellant challenged the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court on the grounds, inter-alia, that the individual entries in Ext. 2 have not been proved in accordance with the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act; that neither the person concern has been examined nor documentary evidence produced in support of supply of the claimed amount of petroleum products; that there is no comparative discussion on Exts. 2 & 3 in the impugned judgment and as such not proved; that the material facts averred in the plaint have not been proved within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act; that the carbon copies of bills against supply of petroleum products exhibited vide Ext. Nos. 5 (1)to 5 (154), but out of these bills some bills which are exhibited as Ext. Nos. 5 (16), 5 (20), 5 (21), 5 (30), 5 (34), 5 (41), 5 (50), 5 (57), 5 (58), 5 (67), 5 (68), 5 (80), 5 (81), 5 (82), 5 (95), 5 (96), 5 (97), 5 (103), 5 (104), 5 (105) and 5 (117) are no way connected with the defendant/appellant and on the contrary, these are the bills of some other institutions, firms or persons, which the learned trial court failed to appreciate. 11. The learned trial Court while deciding the above principal Issue No. 4, relied on the evidence in chief of the P W. 1 and summarized, after going through the documents Exts. 1 to 5 held to the effect that the defendant/appellant used to purchase petroleum products from the plaintiff/respondent firm on credit on different dates as per the orders placed with it and a sum of Rs. 9,50,216.41/- remained un-paid. 1 to 5 held to the effect that the defendant/appellant used to purchase petroleum products from the plaintiff/respondent firm on credit on different dates as per the orders placed with it and a sum of Rs. 9,50,216.41/- remained un-paid. It further found that the defendant/appellant's side though denied the aforesaid fact of outstanding bills for purchasing petroleum products on credit, failed to adduce any evidence in support of their plea and satisfactorily impeached the evidence in chief of PW. 1. 12. It is noticed that the plaintiff respondent exhibited the following documents-Ext. 1 - Agreement made between the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant which was prepared and executed to compromise and withdraw the CR Case No. 16/2006 under Section 138/142 of the NI Act. Ext.1 (1), 1(2), 1(3)-the signatures of the plaintiff respondent. - Ext. 1 (4), 1 (5), 1(6)- are the signatures of the defendant/appellant's, the then Manager. Ext. 1 (7)-signature of Binod Kumar Sarma and Ext. 1(8)-signature of Surjeet Kr. Rathoud who signed as witness. Ext. 2-statement of accounts of transactions made between the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant. Ext.2(1)-is signature of plaintiff/respondent. Ext.3-statement of accounts of transactions prepared by the defendant/appellant (computerised copy), which was submitted to the plaintiff/respondent for his perusal. 13. In cross-examination, PW. 1, inter-alia, stated that the defendant/appellant Tea Estate placed orders for supply of petroleum products often in writing and verbally and so also when supplied the petroleum products, the defendant/appellant sometimes acknowledged receipt on the challans and in some cases no such acknowledgement was made as vehicle drivers were sent to receive the products. He, further, stated that the defendant/appellant did not acknowledge receipt in writing of the entire quantity of supply in respect of which the claim has been made in the suit because, thereafter, they did not contact him and further, that Ext. 3 being a computerised statement of accounts, there is no signature and seal of the defendant/appellant 14. It is, inter-alia, seen from the Ext. 1-the agreement between the parties, dated 22.06.06, that they maintained the business relationship of purchasing Diesel, Petrol, Lubricants etc. Ext. 2-the computer printed statement of accounts on the business establishment pad of the plaintiff/respondent's firm amounting to Rs. 9,35,216.51/- shows the balance amount due from the defendant/appellant and it bears no seal and signature of any authorized person. Ext. 1-the agreement between the parties, dated 22.06.06, that they maintained the business relationship of purchasing Diesel, Petrol, Lubricants etc. Ext. 2-the computer printed statement of accounts on the business establishment pad of the plaintiff/respondent's firm amounting to Rs. 9,35,216.51/- shows the balance amount due from the defendant/appellant and it bears no seal and signature of any authorized person. Ext. 3 is the another computerised copy of the General ledger for the period 01.04.06 to 31.03.07 showing the debit and credit in respect of transactions with the defendant/appellant with credit of Rs. 8,09,605.32/- without seal and signatures of the business establishment of the plaintiff respondent firm. 15. Section 101 of the Evidence Act provides the principle of the burden of proof. The General Rule in legal proceeding is that he who asserts a fact or a claim has to prove it. The burden lies on the party who substantially asserts in the affirmative of the issue, and not upon the party who denies it. Therefore, under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, a party must prove the whole fact he alleges in order to obtain a judgment in his favour. On the other hand, Order 6 Rule 2 lays down the fundamental principles governing pleadings. It is the general rule that every pleading shall contain material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, which is the foundation of the whole suit enabling the Court to give the judgment. In the instant suit, the plaintiff/respondent has rested the claim on the statement of accounts w.e.f. 22.06.2006 to 31.03.2008 showing the balance amount remained un-paid by the defendant/appellant, amounting to Rs. 9,50,216.41/-, which is the claimed amount. The defendant/appellant as it appears from the written statement, has made an evasive denial of the claim of the plaintiff, i.e. without denying each allegation. Further, Section 34 of the Evidence Act provides that (I) all entries in books of accounts, regularly kept in course of business, are relevant and admissible whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to enquire; (2) such entries not by themselves sufficient to charge a person with liability. Therefore, mere production of books of accounts does not prove the transactions and the same has to be proved by oral evidence which may be derived from the intrinsic evidence showing that the same was kept in the regular course of business. Therefore, mere production of books of accounts does not prove the transactions and the same has to be proved by oral evidence which may be derived from the intrinsic evidence showing that the same was kept in the regular course of business. The test of regularity of keeping account of different types of business, of course, cannot be the same. 16. The plaintiff/respondent (PW. 1) as stated above unequivocally stated that the defendant/appellant did not acknowledge the receipt of the entire quantity of petroleum products his firm supplied, because, they sent their drivers to receive the same and after such disputed supply of the petroleum products through good faith transaction, the defendant/appellant desisted any contact. Having regard to the disputed exhibited bills, mentioned in the grounds of appeal stated above, I have verified the relevant exhibits and found as follows :- The below mentioned exhibited bills are not in the name of the defendant/appellant : SI. Exhibit In the name of/Head Amount 1. 5(16) S. M. Bricks Rs. 17.983.60/- 2. 5(20) -do- Rs. 19,288.40/- 3. 5(21) Rs. 17,606.40/- 4. 5(30) Rs. 16,034.00/- 5. 5(31) Rs. 8.803.00/- 6. 5(37) Rs. 17,763.00/- 7. 5(41) Rs. 3,144.00/- 8. 5(50) Rs. 16,977.60/- 9. 5(57) Rs. 14,575.70/- 10. 5(58) Rs. 9,741.00/- 11. 5(67) Rs. 12,663.00/- 12. 5(68) Rs. 12,013.90/- 13. 5(117) Rs. 11,058.30/- 14. 5(23) Manager Bargang Tea Estate Rs. 4,967.00/- 15. 5(80) Manager Dhulee Tea Estate Rs. 67,020.00/- 16. 5(81) -do- Rs. 720.00/- 17. 5(93) Rs. 671020.00/- 18. 5(34) Manager Gingia Tea Estate Rs. 3,77,280.00/- 19. 5(82) -do- Rs. 1,675.00/- 20. 5(105) Rs. 1,005.30/- 21. 5(83) Manager Majuligarh Tea Estate Rs. 2,000.00/- 22. 5(87) -do- Rs. 4,02,120.00/- 23. 5(88) Rs. 67,020.00/- 24. 5(89) Rs. 1,164.00/- 25. 5(97) Rs. 1,164.00 26. 5(104) Rs. 6.150.00/- 27. 5(92) Manager Mijikajan Tea Estate Rs. 1,074.00/- 28. 5(96) -do- Rs. 1,074.00/- 29. 5(95) Manager Majuligum Tea Estate Rs. 24,250.00/- 30. 5(103) Manager Dulahat Tea Estate Rs. 4,000.00/- Total Rs. 12,07,355.2/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seven Thousand Three Hundred fifty five and two paise) 17. The above purported un-paid bills exhibited by the plaintiff/respondent out of the total 154 exhibited bills being Rs. 12,07,355.2/- clearly exceeded the claimed amount. The total bill value of the above 30 un-paid exhibited bills being Rs. 5(103) Manager Dulahat Tea Estate Rs. 4,000.00/- Total Rs. 12,07,355.2/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seven Thousand Three Hundred fifty five and two paise) 17. The above purported un-paid bills exhibited by the plaintiff/respondent out of the total 154 exhibited bills being Rs. 12,07,355.2/- clearly exceeded the claimed amount. The total bill value of the above 30 un-paid exhibited bills being Rs. 12,07,355.2/-, out of the total such 154 exhibited un-paid bills exceed the amount claimed in the suit, that too those are pertaining to different firms, other than the defendant/appellant's Barmahjan Tea Estate, to which petroleum products were allegedly supplied on demand, it is apparent that the plaintiff/respondent has failed to substantiate the specific outstanding amounts prayed for decree in the suit. It is seen that the learned trial Court, without having verified/calculated the exhibited bills and making a comparative discussion on Ext. 2, the statement of accounts of transactions made by the plaintiff/respondent with the defendant/appellant and further, Ext. 3, the Computerised copy of the statement of account of transactions prepared by the defendant/appellant allegedly submitted to the plaintiff/respondent, decreed the suit as prayed for. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that without going into the other issues, the plaintiff/respondent is not entitled for a decree to recover Rs. 9,50,216.41/- from the defendant/appellant's Tea Estate, on account of selling of petroleum products and accordingly, the issue No. 4 is answered in the negative. 19. For the reasons, set forth above, the appeal stands partly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. 20. The suit is remanded back to the learned trial Court with a direction to afford an opportunity to produce additional evidence, oral and documentary, if any, to both the sides so that proper calculation be made to ascertain the liability amount and thereafter, to dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law. 21. Send back the LCRs along with a copy of this judgment and order.