JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.31,61,110/- along with interest @ 12 % per annum till realization of the principal amount being pronounced upon the defendants. 2. In the suit, the plaintiff has cast averments in respect of the defendant standing engaged as Junior Accountant at HPMC head office, Nigam Vihar, Shimla. The defendant had submitted a proposal to manage sale shop-cum-store at Baijnath, for the sale of processed products of HPMC, food/fertilizer/cattle feed and other input items. The aforesaid proposal made by the defendant upon the plaintiff was accepted by the latter in January, 2000. The plaintiff conveyed to the defendant that in case any losses arose during the execution of the said proposal, the same shall be borne by the defendant. In sequel to the plaintiff accepting the relevant proposal of the defendants, the defendant commenced management of sale-cum-store at Baijnath. The said sale-cum-store at Baijnath was kept under the control of Regional Manager, Kangra. In the year 2003-2004, the statements of accounts in respect of branch office Baijnath showed a marginal profit of Rs.0.51 lac also in the years in succession thereto, the aforesaid branch showed marginal profits respectively in a sum of Rs.0.73 lacs and in a sum of Rs. 0.73 lacs. The defendant, however, did not prepare statement of accounts in respect of the sale-cum-store at Baijnath appertaining to the year 2005-2006 and appertaining to the year 2006-2007 nor got the statements of account certified from internal/statutory auditors. During the aforesaid period, the defendants was also noticed to be trading in medicines, commercial activity whereof was not covered within the ambit of the objects clause of the corporation, whereupon, he was directed to discontinue the aforesaid commercial activity from the sale-cum-store at Baijnath. It is also averred in the plaint that a loss of Rs.36,90,000/- has been encumbered upon the plaintiff corporation, on account of various aforestated lapses on the part of the defendant. The quantification of financial losses in the aforesaid sums arising from the relevant lapses of the defendant, stand averred in the plaint to be detected during the course of an audit conducted by the corporation. In sequel to the audit memo of 10.03.2007, copy whereof is appended with the plaint, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the defendant. The quantification of financial losses in the aforesaid sums arising from the relevant lapses of the defendant, stand averred in the plaint to be detected during the course of an audit conducted by the corporation. In sequel to the audit memo of 10.03.2007, copy whereof is appended with the plaint, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the defendant. In the report furnished by the Inquiry Officer concerned, a disclosure is made in respect of the misconducts alleged against the delinquent defendant being proven, whereupon, the Disciplinary authority was constrained to dismiss the defendant from services. Furthermore it is averred in the plaint that under an affidavit executed by the defendant, he had acknowledged his liabilities comprised in a sum of Rs. 35,87,301/- besides it is averred that for liquidating the aforesaid liability acknowledged by the defendant, he had issued cheques No. 695046 of 25.12.2008, cheque No.695049 of 31.03.2009 and cheque No.695048 of 30.09.2009 in favour of the plaintiff. All the aforesaid cheques were to drawn at SBI, Palampur. However, the defendant despite admitting his liability vis-a-vis the plaintiff in the sums aforesaid, he is averred to liqudiate only a sum of Rs.4,86,191/-. Also it is averred that cheque bearing No. 695048 embodying a sum of Rs.13,55,667/- and cheque No.695049 embodying a sum of Rs.13,50,000/-, on respectively being presented before the bank concerned, being refused to be encahsed sequelling initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendant. It is also averred that the cause of action arose in favour the plaintiff against the defendant, firstly in the year 2006 when the defendant failed to submit the annual accounts for the year 2005-06 and further in the year 2007 when the accounts for the year 2006-2007 were not submitted by the defendant. The cause of action further arose in the year 2008 when the acts of misappropriation committed by the defendant came to light in the annual audit report. The cause of action further arose on 23rd December, 2008, when the defendant admitted his liability vis-a-vis an amount of Rs.36,91,926/- and undertook to pay the same vide his affidavit of even date. The cause of action further arose when cheques of 30.09.2009 and of 31.03.2009 issued for the discharge of his liabilities were on their presentation dishonoured and the same is still continuing since the defendant has not paid the entire acknowledged amount to the plaintiff. The cause of action further arose when cheques of 30.09.2009 and of 31.03.2009 issued for the discharge of his liabilities were on their presentation dishonoured and the same is still continuing since the defendant has not paid the entire acknowledged amount to the plaintiff. 3. The defendant contested the averments constituted in the plaint by instituting a written statement thereto, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability of the suit, cause of action, suppressions of facts, estoppel, limitation and valuation etc. In the written statement, the defendant does not deny the factum of his being permitted by the plaintiff to manage the sale-cum-store at Baijnath. He contends that in the year 2007, the plaintiff directed him to immediately handover the possession of the shop. He proceeds to contend that despite his requesting the plaintiff to take possession of the stocks lying in the shop, it failed to take possession thereof. He espouses in the written statement that no reasonable opportunity was given to him by the plaintiff to settle his liabilities in respect of the medicine shop rather he contends that pressure was exerted upon him by the plaintiff, to make payments in respect of the stocks of medicine despite theirs suffering expiry, arising from closure of the relevant shop. He contends that the affidavit wherein he acknowledges his liability, is a sequel of exertion of pressure or undue influence upon him, hence, the recitals borne therein being not binding upon him. On merits, he denied that he did not prepare accounts in respect of the shop appertaining to the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. He denies that he failed to get the accounts pertaining to the aforesaid years, audited by the Statutory auditor besides he denied that he did not obtain certification in respect thereto from the statutory auditor. He vehemently denied that he committed any act of omission during the aforesaid financial years, whereupon, loss in the sum of Rs. 36,32,000/- stood encumbered upon the plaintiff corporation. He has contended that issuance of cheques bearing Nos. 695046 of 25.12.2008, cheque No. 695049 of 31.03.2009 and Cheque No. 695048 of 30.09.2009 by him vis-a-vis the plaintiff corporation being a sequel of exertion of coercion upon him, thereupon, no reliance for any purpose being amenable to be placed thereon by this Court. 4. He has contended that issuance of cheques bearing Nos. 695046 of 25.12.2008, cheque No. 695049 of 31.03.2009 and Cheque No. 695048 of 30.09.2009 by him vis-a-vis the plaintiff corporation being a sequel of exertion of coercion upon him, thereupon, no reliance for any purpose being amenable to be placed thereon by this Court. 4. The plaintiff herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, it denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the contentious pleadings of the parties, this Court on 24th July, 2012, struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount along with interest? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit on account of his own acquiescence’s? OPD. 5. Whether the amount claimed by the plaintiff relates to the stocks of the medicines, tea and wine? OPD. 6. Whether the undertaking given by the defendant has been entertained under coercion and mis representation? OPD. 7. Relief. 6. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:- Issue No.1.......Yes. Issue No.2.......No. Issue No.3.......No. Issue No.4.......No. Issue No.5.......No. Issue No.6.......No. 7. Relief.......The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as per the operative portion of the judgment. Reasons for the findings. Issues No.1, 5 and 6. 7. All the aforesaid issues are taken together for discussion and decision as they are interlinked with each other besides when common evidence upon the aforesaid issues stands adduced by the contesting parties. 8. In proof of the relevant issues whereupon onus is cast upon the plaintiff corporation, the plaintiff corporation led into the witness box one Dinesh Kumar, Accountant, who testified as PW-1. During the course of his examination-in-chief, he tendered Ex.PW1/B, exhibit whereof comprises a copy of the original letter brought by him in Court, where within occurs a proposal made by the defendant to the plaintiff corporation, in respect of establishment of its branch office at Baijnath. He also tendered into evidence Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E, under exhibits whereof the proposal of the defendant comprised in Ex.PW1/B was accepted by the plaintiff corporation. He also tendered into evidence Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E, under exhibits whereof the proposal of the defendant comprised in Ex.PW1/B was accepted by the plaintiff corporation. He has testified that the defendant in respect of financial years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 failing to prepare accounts in respect of the shop-cum-store at Baijnath nor his transmitting them to the Head Office of the plaintiff corporation concerned, located at Shimla, whereafter, under Exts. PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G, the plaintiff corporation was enjoined to make apposite correspondences with the defendant. He continued to testify that in departure of the permissible trading activities of the plaintiff corporation, the defendant proceeded to trade in medicines from the shop-cum-store at Baijnath besides he has testified that a sum of Rs.36,90,000/- is recoverable by the plaintiff corporation from the defendant, sum whereof comprising the pecuniary losses encumbered upon the plaintiff corporation, in sequel to all the aforesaid acts of commissions and omissions on the part of the defendant. He has also tendered into evidence Ex.PW1/H, exhibit whereof is a copy of the audit memo of 10.03.2008, prepared by the officials of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), revealing therein the quantum of pecuniary loss encumbered upon the plaintiff corporation in respect of the shop-cum-store at Baijnath. He also tendered into evidence Ex.PW1/J, exhibits whereof comprises the comments of CAG, in its 34th Annual report appertaining to the year 2007-08, in respect of the plaintiff corporation. He deposes that in sequel to Ex.PW1/j, departmental action was initiated against the defendant which culminated into his dismissal from service under Ex.PW1/K. He has tendered into evidence Ex.PW1/L, exhibit whereof is an affidavit executed by the defendant on 23.12.2008, wherein, he acknowledged his liabilities in the sums disclosed therein besides tendered Ex.PW1/H, wherein also he undertook to liquidate the aforesaid sums of money vis-a-vis the plaintiff corporation. He has continued to depose that the defendant respectively on 25.12.2008, on 31.03.2009 and on 30.09.2009 issued cheques respectively in the sums of Rs.4,86,191/-, Rs.13,50,000/- and 13,55,667/-, for liquidating his liabilities disclosed in Ex.PW1/H. He has deposed that out of the aforesaid three cheques, one cheque holding an amount of Rs.4,86,191/- was encashed whereas the other two cheques were dischonoured. Consequently, he has deposed that the suit of the plaintiff claiming a decree in a sum of Rs.31,01,110/- being pronounced against the defendant being hence decreed. Consequently, he has deposed that the suit of the plaintiff claiming a decree in a sum of Rs.31,01,110/- being pronounced against the defendant being hence decreed. PW-1 was subjected to an exacting cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, wherein, he admitted that under Ex.DB, the Deputy General Manager (Marketing) of the plaintiff corporation had intimated the Medical Superintendent, H.P. Government Institute of PG Education and Research and Ayurveda, Paprola, District Kangra H.P., that since the plaintiff corporation was no more engaged in the business of selling medicines, hence the aforesaid outlet was being closed and possession thereof may be taken over immediately. PW-1 denied the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, that while closing the aforesaid outlet, the defendant was not given any time to dispose off, the existing stock of medicines also denied that the same was lifted by the plaintiff corporation, rather he voluntarily deposed that the stock was lifted by the defendant himself. He admitted the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, that a sum of Rs.36,90,000/- comprises the value of stocks lying in the branch office at Baijnath and in the aforesaid outlet, at Paprola meant for sale of medicines. He has also admitted the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant that when the branch office at Baijnath was closed, they had not lifted any stock of wine and processed foods etc, lying thereat. He voluntarily deposed that stocks of tea, wine and medicines is not lifted. He feigned ignorance that at the time of closer of Baijnath branch, the defendant had handed over stocks to the Assistant Manager (F&A), HPMC, Kangra vide letter dated 31.07.2008, rather he voluntarily deposed that no such letter is available in the record of the plaintiff corporation. 9. In support of the contentions reared by the defendant in his written statement, he relied upon the testimony of DW-1, Shashi Pal Katna, wherein, he has deposed that he was posted in Kangra from the year 2002-2006 and again from 2008 to 2012. He has also deposed that while he was posted at Kangra, he conducted the physical verification of the stocks at Baijnath Branch, in sequel whereof, he had found stocks of tea, juices, medicines and apart therefrom fixtures and furniture being available thereat. 10. He has also deposed that while he was posted at Kangra, he conducted the physical verification of the stocks at Baijnath Branch, in sequel whereof, he had found stocks of tea, juices, medicines and apart therefrom fixtures and furniture being available thereat. 10. DW-2, Shri Prince Rana, has testified that the defendant had not been afforded any time or opportunity to sell the stocks which were lying the shop also he has testified that the plaintiff before closing the shop had not lifted the stocks lying thereat. 11. The averments cast in the plaint, in respect of the defendant, in respect of the financial years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, not preparing statements of accounts in respect of mercantile activities carried by the defendant in the shop-cum-store at Baijnath also his not getting the accounts audited by any internal statutory auditor, stand proven by PW-1. Though, the defendant in his written statement contested the aforesaid averments, yet in respect thereto, he has not been able to adduce any befitting best documentary evidence comprised in the reports of auditors, who appertaining to the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, hence, audited the accounts of the shop-cum-store at Baijnath. Consequently, it is to be concluded that the defendant had failed to get audited the accounts in respect of the aforestated financial years, despite his for the financial years prior thereto getting accounts in respect of the mercantile activities carried in the shop-cum-store at Baijnath, hence audited by statutory auditors. The further effect of the aforesaid omission, is that it casts suspicion about the manner of his handling the stocks lying in the shop-cum-store at Baijnath, besides with the report of the auditor comprised in Ex.PW1/H, as also the apposite comments comprised in Ex.PW1/J,cumulatively consensually disclosing therein that, on an audit being held of the records maintained in the shop-cum-store at Baijnath by the defendant, unearthings emanating therefrom in respect of defalcations in a sum of Rs.36,90,000/-, occurring thereat, thereupon, for want adduction of satisfactory rebuttal evidence thereto, warrants imputation of credence thereon. 12. 12. The execution by the defendant of an affidavit borne on Ex.PW1/L, with a disclosure therein in respect of his acknowledging the liabilities displayed therein, though is concerted to be rid of its tenacity, on score of its execution spurring from exertion being exerted or exercised upon him, yet the aforesaid effort on the part of the defendant, to bely the voluntarily execution of Ex.PW1/L, is undermined by the factum of one of the cheques, in sequel thereto, issued by the defendant vis-a-vis the plaintiff corporation, embodying a sum of Rs. 4,86,191/-, standing encashed, on its presentation before the bankers concerned. Also the effect of encashment of one of the cheques holding a sum of Rs.4,86,191/- is of the defendant acknowledging the correctness besides veracity of the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/H, as also of the recitals borne in Ex.PW1/J, wherein a graphic display occurs in respect of the defendant vis-a-vis financial years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, embezzling sums of Rs.36,90,000/-. 13. PW1 in his cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the defendant, was purveyed an affirmative suggestion holding echoings therein, that sums of money in respect whereof, the decree is claimed against the defendant being in respect of stocks lying in the shop-cum-store at Baijnath, suggestion whereof evinced a reply in the affirmative from PW-1, besides the further suggestion put to PW-1 by the defendant's counsel while holding PW-1, to cross-examination, that when the branch office at Baijnath was closed, the officials of the plaintiff corporation had not lifted any stocks of wine and processed foods etc., lying thereat, also evinced a reply in the affirmative from PW-1, wherefrom an inference is galvanized that thereupon the defendant acquiesces to the factum of at the time of closure of the shop-cum-store at Baijnath, the officials of the plaintiff corporation not lifting the stocks of wine and processed foods etc., lying thereat, with a further concomitant effect of the entire defence reared by the defendant in his written statement that at the time of closure of the shop-cum-store at Baijnath, the officials of the plaintiffs lifted the stock lying therein, stock whereof holds a value in the sum borne in Ex.PW1/H, hence, the suit being not maintainable against him, to be hence wanting in any truth or veracity. 14. 14. Be that as it may, the defendant has also espoused that stocks of medicines, if any, lying at the shop-cum-store at Baijnath at the time of its closure suffering expiration, hence, liabilities in respect of values thereof, being not amenable to be fastenable upon him. However, in support of the aforesaid contention, he has not adduced on record any documentary or befitting oral evidence, whereupon, the aforesaid espousal is rendered rudderless. The defendant's evidence comprised in the deposition of DW-1, of the latter during the course of his conducting physical verification of the relevant premises, his discovering stocks of tea, juices, medicines and apart therefrom fixture and furniture being available thereat, is not sufficient to dispel the effect of the aforesaid inferences, given his not adducing any best documentary evidence in respect thereto. Even though DW-1, during the course of his cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the defendant, has admitted the factum of the defendant submitting an inventory comprised in Ex.DX in respect of the articles, available in the shop-cum-store at Baijnath, yet no reliance can be placed thereupon, it being merely a photo copy also it being unilaterally prepared besides with the defendant not adducing evidence of potent vigour for dispelling the worth of the report of auditor comprised in Ex.PW1/H as also for undermining the veracity of the comments of the CAG, comprised in Ex.PW1/J, thereupon, the aforesaid Ex. DX does not erode either the effect of either Ex.PW1/H or of Ex.PW1/J nor the effect of his acquiescing to his liabilities under his sworn affidavit, comprised in Ex.PW1/L, is eroded. Moreover, the oral deposition of DW-2, an employee of the defendant, in respect of the defendant not being afforded any time or opportunity to sell the stocks lying at the shop at Baijnath, given its being forthwith ordered to be closed, likewise does not rip apart the effect of the aforesaid inferences drawn by this Court, it being unsupported by credible best documentary evidence. 15. Consequently, issues No.1, 5 and 6 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.2. 16. In view of my findings rendered on issues No.1, 5 and 6 above, the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable, hence, issue No.2 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.3. 17. 15. Consequently, issues No.1, 5 and 6 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.2. 16. In view of my findings rendered on issues No.1, 5 and 6 above, the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable, hence, issue No.2 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.3. 17. In view of my findings on issues No.1, 5 and 6 above, the plaintiff has cause of action, hence, issue No.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No.4. 18. In view of my findings on issues No.1, 5 and 6 above, the plaintiff has failed to prove as to how the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit on account of his own acquiescences. Consequently, issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Relief. 19. In sequel to findings on issues aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the plaintiff is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.31,01,110/- (Rs. Thirty one lacs, one thousand and one hundred ten only) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization, from the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.