JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. RATH, J. 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff is a Government Company. The company has its registered office at Bhubaneswar and branches in different parts of the State including at Baripada. The defendant was appointed as a dealer of fertilizer in the year 1983. The plaintiff used to supply the fertilizer to the defendant, received money, which was duly entered in the books of accounts of the plaintiff. The last transactions were made on 27.9.1983. It was found that an amount of Rs. 6,392.90/- was outstanding against him. Notice was issued to the defendant demanding payment of outstanding dues. Since all the persuasions made by the plaintiff ended in a fiasco, the suit was filed for realization of the amount as aforesaid. 2. The case of the defendant is that Srikanta Mohanty, Sales Representative of the plaintiff used to receive cash and issue delivery order to the defendant and other retailers. He lifted the stock from the Ware House, Rairangpur on the basis of the delivery order. The plaintiff had not issued delivery order on credit. The transaction was always made on cash/draft. The specific case of the defendant is that on 27.9.1983, the Sales Representatives received cash of Rs. 6,393/-from him and issued delivery order. The Sales Representative received the cash promising that he will make a draft of the said amount either in Bank of India or in Canara Bank. 3. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed six issues, out of which, issue no.4 is pivotal. The same is: “4. Whether the plaintiff received the claimed amount from the defendant through the Sales Representative Sri Srikanta Mohanty?” 4. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined one witness and on its behalf, four documents had been exhibited. The defendant had examined one witness and on his behalf, nine documents had been exhibited. The learned trial court came to hold that the defendant was getting the delivery orders of fertilizer from the plaintiff through his Sales Representative on credit. Whenever cash was paid to the plaintiff, the factum of such payment was reflected in the delivery order. Any payment made by way of bank draft was also reflected in the delivery order. The learned trial court came to hold that the defendant was getting the delivery orders of fertilizer from the plaintiff through his Sales Representative on credit. Whenever cash was paid to the plaintiff, the factum of such payment was reflected in the delivery order. Any payment made by way of bank draft was also reflected in the delivery order. The defendant has admitted in his cross-examination that though he paid the cash on 27.9.1983 to Srikanta Mohanty, he did not demand for money receipt. He insisted upon the Sales Representative to reflect in the delivery order instead of the bank draft, but then the Sales Representative assured him that there will be no difficult even if word ‘cash’ was not written. It held that the defendant had failed to prove payment of Rs. 6,329.90/- against delivery order dated 27.3.1983 and decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendant filed Money Appeal No.1/10 of 97-88 before the learned A.D.J., Rairangpur. The learned appellate court came to hold that Srikanta Mohanty, the Sales Representative of the plaintiff had not been examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had business dealings with the defendant. In the year 1984, vide Ext.E, an amount of Rs. 60,118.12/- was outstanding against the defendant but in the suit filed on 19.9.1986 it only preferred claim of the transaction of 27.9.1983. The plaintiff had failed to establish that the transaction in question was on credit. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on 26.8.2016 on the following substantial question of law. “Whether the lower appellate court is justified in putting the burden on the plaintiff to prove that defendant has not paid the alleged amount under the transaction dated 27.9.1983 by examining Srikanta Mohanty, the Sales Representative of the plaintiff?” 6. Mr. Baug, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff was a dealer in fertilizer. He had taken fertilizer on credit. Since the amount was not paid, the plaintiff after issuing notice, instituted the suit. The learned trial court, on analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, decreed the suit, but the learned appellate court committed a manifest illegality in dismissing the suit holding inter alia that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has paid the amount as claimed. 7. Per contra, Mr. The learned trial court, on analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, decreed the suit, but the learned appellate court committed a manifest illegality in dismissing the suit holding inter alia that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has paid the amount as claimed. 7. Per contra, Mr. Rout, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was made either in cash or draft. The plaintiff has not allowed the defendant to the credit facilities. No document has been proved with regard to supply of goods on credit. 8. Exhibit-1, the delivery order-cum-challan-cum-invoice dated 27.9.1983 issued to the defendant shows that 60 bags of fertilizer sold for an amount of Rs. 6,393/-. The payment reference column has four heads. Under the heading bank, “D.D. Canara Bank” has been mentioned. The column meant for D/D/Pay Order No., it has been mentioned as ‘Cuttack’. The reference column date is blank. There is no reference in the Ext.1 that goods were supplied to the defendant on credit. There is also no evidence on record that goods were supplied to the defendant on credit. In absence of any document with regard to supply of goods to the defendant on credit, it is difficult to believe that goods were supplied to the defendant on credit. The learned appellate court is not correct in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff that money was not paid. This is not the only ground on which the learned appellate court set aside the judgment of the learned trial court. The learned appellate, on a thread bare analysis of the evidence on record as well as pleadings, held that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate its case. 9. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No costs.