JUDGMENT : H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the defendant in the Court of the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S. No. 5985/2008 filed by the present respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,24,191/- with interest there upon. The said suit came to be decreed by the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 17.07.2010, against which, the defendant has preferred this appeal. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court is that the plaintiff was the manufacturers and suppliers of power gears and switchgears and panel boards. In response to the order placed by the defendant for supply of switch gears and panel boards from time to time, the plaintiff has supplied the material as and when the order placed as per the invoices. Thus, the total transaction between the parties was for a sum of Rs. 23,77,056.50 paise, out of which, the plaintiff received only a sum of Rs. 22,52,864.50 paise. Thus, balance of Rs. 1,24,191/- is due to the plaintiff by the defendant. Since the defendant failed to pay the said due amount, the plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery of the said sum along with interest at the rate of 21% per annum. 3. In response to the summons, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement. The defendant did not deny the supply of goods to him by the plaintiff as and when the orders placed by him. However, it was the contention of the defendant that it was cleared all the bills raised by the plaintiff against the supply of goods which was made by cash, as such, there was no due as on the date of the suit. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,24,191/- along with interest at the rate of 21% p.a.? 2. Whether plaintiff proves cause of action? 3. Whether defendant proves that suit is not maintainable as pleaded in written statement? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree sought? 5. What order or decree? 4. 1,24,191/- along with interest at the rate of 21% p.a.? 2. Whether plaintiff proves cause of action? 3. Whether defendant proves that suit is not maintainable as pleaded in written statement? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree sought? 5. What order or decree? 4. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got examined Smt. Jyothi Madan as PW-1 and got produced and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and from the side of the defendant, one Sri Girish Jain was examined as DW-1, however, no documents were marked from his side. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 17.07.2010 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,24,191/- with costs and current interest thereon at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. It is against the said judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred this appeal. 6. Lower Court records were called for the same, which are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the argument addressed in the matter and perused the material placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeal. The only point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the appellant has established that the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed as prayed?" 8. PW-1 has reiterated the plaint averments in her evidence filed in the form of affidavit and has stated that for the orders placed by the defendant for supply of switch gears and panel boards, the plaintiff had supplied the goods by raising invoices on different dates. The total amount of all those invoices comes to Rs. 23,77,055.50 paise. However, the defendant after receipt of goods had made the payment at different intervals only to a sum of Rs. 22,52,864.50 paise. As such, there is still balance of Rs. 1,24,191/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. In that regard, the plaintiff got produced the Accounts Extract for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 and got it marked as Ex.P.1. The said Accounts Extract shows that the plaintiff claims to have supplied the goods worth Rs. 23,77,055.50 paise and after deducting the payment said to have been received by him which is at Rs. 22,52,864.50 paise, still a sum of Rs. 1,24,191/- is shown as balance due to the plaintiff by the defendant. 9. The said Accounts Extract shows that the plaintiff claims to have supplied the goods worth Rs. 23,77,055.50 paise and after deducting the payment said to have been received by him which is at Rs. 22,52,864.50 paise, still a sum of Rs. 1,24,191/- is shown as balance due to the plaintiff by the defendant. 9. The plaintiff also got produced and marked seven Invoices at Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.8 and five Delivery Challans marked from Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.13 to show that under those invoices the goods were supplied and delivery challans evidencing the supply of goods. Those documents have not been specifically denied or objected from the defendant side both in cross-examination of PW-1 and evidence of DW-1. Thus, the supply of goods from the plaintiff is not seriously disputed by the defendant. However, the only contention of the defendant in the form of defence is that all those goods supplied under those invoices were delivered to it by the plaintiff only against the payment made by it. As such, there was no due payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. 10. It is on this line learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that when the goods were delivered against the payment, question of any out standing due payable by the defendant to plaintiff hardly arises since the payments have been made as and when the goods were supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff towards supply of goods. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is admittedly not supported by any documentary evidence produced by defendant in the Court below to show that the alleged payment said to have been made by him against the supply of goods. On the other hand, DW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that they do not have any document to show the payment made to the plaintiff, but they have made endorsement on the bill itself. 11. A perusal of invoices marked at Ex.P.2 to 8 would go to show that all those invoices are raised by the plaintiff mentioning the details of the goods supplied to the defendant along with the amount of the goods that were supplied. In those documents, Ex.P.2, 3 and 4 there is a round seal of the defendant establishment and the signature made with those seal marks. 12. In those documents, Ex.P.2, 3 and 4 there is a round seal of the defendant establishment and the signature made with those seal marks. 12. By a perusal and scrutiny of the said seal and signature, it can be inferred that in case any payment has been really made against those invoices, nothing had prevented the defendant from obtaining the 'payment made receipt' or atleast an endorsement in writing against the documents under which the goods were supplied. Ex.P.2 to 8 being such of those documents evidencing the supply of goods, the defendant was expected and required to get an endorsement of the payment made on those documents. The defendant being the company, it is expected that it has knowledge that against any payment made by it, that too in huge sum, a proper receipt acknowledging the payment against supply of goods is necessarily required to be obtained. 13. Secondly, when the invoices shows the cost of the goods running into few lakhs of rupees, it is hard to believe that payments were made with respect to all those invoices only in cash without obtaining any documents. 14. Finally, assuming for a moment that the payments were made in cash against the supply of goods by the defendant, then, it was naturally expected that the defendant to maintain books of accounts from its side since it is a company involving in construction activity as such it was expected to produce the books of accounts maintained by it evidencing the entries passed by it regarding the payments made with respect to those invoices. In the absence of any of these proofs or documents being shown or produced by the defendant and in the light of the undisputed fact that supply of goods made by the plaintiff to defendant, the only inference that can be drawn is that the defendant has not placed any material to show that he has made the payment in its entirety towards goods supplied to it. On the other hand, the Accounts Extract at Ex.P.1 produced by the plaintiff makes it to believe that since the said document is the extract of the Accounts maintained by the plaintiff in its daily and normal course of business and in which the plaintiff has acknowledged the receipt of payment of substantial amount of Rs. 22,52,864.50 paise and showing a balance of a sum of Rs. 22,52,864.50 paise and showing a balance of a sum of Rs. 1,24,191/- I find no reason in disbelieving the evidence placed by the plaintiff in proving that the defendant was due to it for a sum claimed by the plaintiff. As such, the trial Court has rightly analysed the evidence placed before it in its proper perspective and has decreed the suit. Therefore, I do not find any reason in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and to allow the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No. 5985/2008 dated 17.07.2010 is hereby confirmed. 15. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Records to the Court below without delay. 16. In view of disposal of the main appeal, the Miscellaneous Civil 22136/2010 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.