JUDGMENT : Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. 1. The captioned regular first appeal is filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.7.2019 passed in O.S. No. 8096/2016 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, wherein the suit is decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5,98,039/- with interest at 24% per annum from 14.5.2014 till its final realisation from defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally, however, the claim of the plaintiff insofar as Rs. 2,94,566/- is concerned, the same is dismissed. This part of the judgment and decree is not challenged by the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: (a) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery by alleging that the plaintiff-firm is a distributor for paper and paper articles for reputed paper manufactures in India. The defendants are in the field of printing and other allied activities. The defendants purchased the paper and paper articles under the invoice No. B383/14-15 dated 12.05.2014 for a sum of Rs. 2,94,566/- and Rs. 5,98,039/- under invoice No. B407/14-15 dated 14.05.2014. The grievance of the plaintiff was that defendants made partial payment and the balance amount of Rs. 6,68,175/- was due and inspite of demand notices and consequent reminders, defendants failed to pay the outstanding balance which was due to the plaintiff. On these set of pleadings, the present suit was filed seeking recovery of Rs. 10,46,826/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the defendants jointly and severally. (b) On receipt of summons, the defendants tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants stoutly denied the credit invoices on which the plaintiff has sought recovery and contended that defendants had never signed on the credit invoices of the plaintiff. The present suit is filed with an oblique motive to make wrongful gain. The defendants claimed that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and that they are not liable to pay any dues to the plaintiff and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. (c) Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. The defendants claimed that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and that they are not liable to pay any dues to the plaintiff and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. (c) Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is due in a sum of Rs. 10,46,826/- towards supply of paper and paper articles as claimed in para-2 of the plaint? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest if so at what rate? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for? 4. What order/decree?" (d) The plaintiff firm in support of its case examined its power of attorney holder as P.W. 1 and to corroborate its claim adduced documentary evidence vide Exs. P1 to 16. The defendants to counter the claim of the plaintiff by way of rebuttal evidence let in ocular evidence of its Proprietor as D.W. 1 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs. D1 to 3. (e) The Trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence answered issue No. 1 partly in the affirmative by holding that plaintiff has failed to prove the transaction under invoice No. B383/14-15 and therefore, the claim of plaintiff-company insofar as the amount of Rs. 2,94,566/- is concerned, the same was negatived and the suit came to be dismissed. Insofar as invoice bearing No. B407/14-15 is concerned, the Trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff by producing cogent and clinching evidence has succeeded in establishing that the plaintiff had supplied materials worth Rs. 5,98,039/- and therefore the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,98,039/- towards supply of materials under invoice No. B407/14-15. (f) It is against the decreetal amount of Rs. 5,98,039/-, the defendants are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that he has already made payment of the amount claimed under invoice No. B407/14-15. The defendants had issued a cheque bearing No. 011488 dated 20.6.2014 drawn on M/s. Shamarao Vittal Co-Operative Bank Limited for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Placing reliance on Ex. D1, the counsel would submit that the cheque was cleared and the same is evident from the bank statement as per Ex. D1 which clearly demonstrates that a sum of Rs. The defendants had issued a cheque bearing No. 011488 dated 20.6.2014 drawn on M/s. Shamarao Vittal Co-Operative Bank Limited for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Placing reliance on Ex. D1, the counsel would submit that the cheque was cleared and the same is evident from the bank statement as per Ex. D1 which clearly demonstrates that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was credited to the account of the plaintiff company and this clinching evidence is ignored by the Trial Court, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would seriously dispute and contend that the materials that were supplied under invoice No. B407/14-15 were infact returned to the plaintiff and the materials returned to plaintiff was to the tune of Rs. 2,24,430/- and this fact is reflected in Ex. P12 which clearly indicates that plaintiff had accepted the same through credit Note bearing No. 107/2014-15. The learned counsel would further contend that insofar as the remaining sum of Rs. 1,23,609/-, the same was paid by cash and the said payment is substantiated during trial by defendants, which is not taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, he would contend that the findings recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 is contrary to the clinching evidence on record and therefore, warrants interference. The learned counsel for the defendants would further contend that payments made as per Ex. D1 to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 12,103/- are not at all seriously disputed and these material aspects are not at all properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants is that the entire proceedings stand vitiated as P.W. 1 who has prosecuted the suit had no authorisation under the General Power of Attorney. Referring to the GPA, the learned counsel for defendants would contend that the authorisation was never placed before the plaintiff-firm's Board and no resolution came to be passed authorising P.W. 1 to prosecute the suit. Therefore, he would submit that the plaint is a defective plaint and the entire proceedings stand vitiated for want of authorisation. Referring to the GPA, the learned counsel for defendants would contend that the authorisation was never placed before the plaintiff-firm's Board and no resolution came to be passed authorising P.W. 1 to prosecute the suit. Therefore, he would submit that the plaint is a defective plaint and the entire proceedings stand vitiated for want of authorisation. Taking this Court to the recitals in the General Power of Attorney, the learned counsel would submit that the authorisation was given to P.W. 1 to initiate recovery proceedings against one M/s. Select Marketing Private Limited and therefore, the authorisation was confined only to initiate recovery proceedings against the above said company and would contend that based on the above authorisation, the GPA holder could not have initiated recovery proceedings against the present defendants. On these set of grounds, he would submit that the suit is even otherwise liable to be dismissed on this count also. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff repelling the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants would support the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court and supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, she would submit that the contention of the defendants that they have repaid the entire amount is in absence of rebuttal evidence let in by them. She would submit that the defendants have admitted in unequivocal terms that plaintiff-company has supplied the materials under Ex. P3 and having admitted the supply of materials worth Rs. 5,98,039/- it was incumbent on the part of the defendants to produce cogent and clinching evidence indicating that the entire amount under invoice No. B407/2014-15 was repaid and having failed to produce documentary evidence, she would submit that the Trial Court placing reliance on cogent and clinching evidence let in by the plaintiff was justified in decreeing the suit and therefore, she would contend that the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Judge is based on legal evidence adduced by the plaintiff. To counter the alleged payments made by the defendants to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- and allegations that plaintiff has admitted the same in para(2), counsel appearing for the plaintiff, would take this Court to Exs. To counter the alleged payments made by the defendants to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- and allegations that plaintiff has admitted the same in para(2), counsel appearing for the plaintiff, would take this Court to Exs. P4 to 6, P9 and P11 and contend that the payment which is admitted by the plaintiff at Para(6) refers to the transactions bearing Invoice No. B383/14-15 and under the said invoice the defendants were due and accordingly, the partial payment which was made by them was adjusted towards the transaction under invoice No. B383/14-15. She would further contend that the plaintiff had issued a legal notice as per Ex. P4 calling upon the defendants to pay balance amount pending with a specific contention that the said amount is pending beyond the credit period of 30 days. Inspite of receipt of notice, the defendants have not chosen to reply. She would further contend that two reminders were also issued to the defendants as per Exs. P5 and P6 and inspite of the same, the defendants have failed to pay the balance amount and therefore, these documents coupled with Ex. P12 clearly establishes that the defendants have failed to repay the amount towards supply of materials under Invoice No. B407/14-15. On these set of grounds, she would submit that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is in accordance with law and the same does not suffer from infirmities and therefore, requests this Court to dismiss the appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants and perused the trial Court records. 7. The following points would arise for consideration before this Court: "(a) Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5,98,039/- in respect of supply of materials covered under Invoice No. B407/14-15? (b) Whether the contention of defendants that defendants have repaid the entire amount which was due under Invoice No. B407/14-15 is substantiated? (c) Whether the contention of the defendants that the present suit in the present form for want of authorisation in favour of GPA holder can be acceded to in the absence of pleadings to that effect in the written statement as well as in the absence of grounds urged in the appeal memo?" 8. (c) Whether the contention of the defendants that the present suit in the present form for want of authorisation in favour of GPA holder can be acceded to in the absence of pleadings to that effect in the written statement as well as in the absence of grounds urged in the appeal memo?" 8. Regarding Points 1 and 2: The plaintiff has filed the present suit by specifically contending that under Invoice No. B407/14-15 the plaintiff's company has supplied materials worth Rs. 5,98,039/- and the said amount which is due is not paid by the defendants inspite of notice and consequent two reminders. To substantiate its claim, plaintiff has produced the invoice at Ex. P3. On perusal of the said invoice, this Court would find that the plaintiff has supplied materials worth Rs. 5,63,771/- and therefore, including the delivery charges with additional VAT payable at 5.5% and invoice is raised for Rs. 5,98,039/-. Demanding the said amount, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 15.10.2016 (Ex. P13) calling upon the defendants to pay the amount due under Invoice No. B-407/2014-15. Reminders are also issued by the plaintiff-company as per Exs. P4 to 6 as well as Exs. P9 to 11. It is not in dispute that the defendants though served with these notices have not chosen to give reply. Therefore, this Court wound find that, at the first instance itself, there is no specific denial by the defendants by issuing the reply notice. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants who have failed to deny the claim of the plaintiff at the earliest point of time when they were served with demand notices calling upon them to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,66,611/- under Invoice bearing No. B-407/2014-15. It is in this background, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit seeking recovery. On perusal of written statement which is filed on 31.5.2017, this Court would find that there is absolutely no whisper by the defendants in regard to the repayment made to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 12,103/- towards the transaction covered under Invoice No. 407/14-15. Even during trial, while cross-examining the plaintiff, the defendants have not at all specifically stated nor the plaintiff has confronted with these documents by suggesting that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 12,103/- paid under Ex. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 12,103/- towards the transaction covered under Invoice No. 407/14-15. Even during trial, while cross-examining the plaintiff, the defendants have not at all specifically stated nor the plaintiff has confronted with these documents by suggesting that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 12,103/- paid under Ex. D1 was towards payment covering the transaction under Invoice No. B-407/14-15. Even in the examination-in-chief, the defendants have not at all whispered about the alleged payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 12,103/- towards the amount due under Invoice No. 407/14-15. In the cross-examination, plaintiff has succeeded in eliciting that he has received materials under Ex. P3. The defendants have also admitted in an unequivocal terms that they are in receipt of demand notices sent to them as per Exs. P4, 6 and Exs. P9 and 11. The defendants have also admitted in unequivocal terms that they have not issued any reply to the impugned demand notices. They have clearly admitted the receipt of legal notice issued as per Ex. P13. The further cross-examination of D.W. 1, which is conducted on 27.5.2019 would clinch the issue and virtually put to rest the controversy in regard to dues payable to the tune of Rs. 5,98,039/- under Invoice No. B-407/14-15. They have admitted in unequivocal terms that the materials worth Rs. 5,98,039/- was supplied to the defendants. Further what is voluntarily stated by the defendants is that the amount is paid on 24.6.2014 through cheque bearing No. 11488. They have also stated that balance amount of Rs. 1,23,609/- was paid by cash. If the supply of material by the plaintiff's firm is admitted by defendants, then it was incumbent on the part of the defendants to discharge their burden by producing relevant documents indicating payment made towards invoice No. B407. On perusal of the rebuttal evidence, this Court would find that the defendants have failed to place on record the clinching evidence indicating payment towards the transaction under Invoice No. 407. In that view of the matter, the clinching evidence let in by the plaintiff has gone unchallenged and in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the claim made by the plaintiff has to be upheld. Therefore, the points 1 and 2 formulated by this Court has to be answered in the affirmative. 9. In that view of the matter, the clinching evidence let in by the plaintiff has gone unchallenged and in the absence of rebuttal evidence, the claim made by the plaintiff has to be upheld. Therefore, the points 1 and 2 formulated by this Court has to be answered in the affirmative. 9. Regarding Point No. 3: The second limb of argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants before this Court is that the plaint itself is defective for want of authorisation. The defendants have taken serious objection that P.W. 1 who has prosecuted the suit on behalf of plaintiff-company was not at all authorised to prosecute the present suit and therefore, he would submit that the suit is liable to be dismissed. This contention cannot be acceded to. I have perused the power of attorney which is produced at Ex. P1. Though Para(1) refers to initiation of recovery proceedings against one M/s. Select Marketing Pvt. Ltd., however, the preceding paragraph also indicates that the authorisation was given by the plaintiff-company to initiate proceedings even against others. The word 'others' used in Paragraph (1) has to be given wider import. Therefore, I am of the view that P.W. 1 who has prosecuted the suit is the GPA holder. Therefore, in the absence of defence in the written statement and the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, I am of the view that such contention cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, point No. 3 formulated by this Court is answered in the affirmative. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court having independently assessed the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence would affirm the findings recorded by the Court below on Issue Nos. 1 to 3. This Court is of the view that the Trial Court was justified in holding that plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5,98,039/- in respect of supply of materials covered under Invoice No. B407/14-15. The Trial Court having meticulously examined the pleadings in the written statement and in absence of documentary evidence was justified in holding that defendants have failed to prove that the entire amount due under invoice No. B407/14-15 was paid. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is based on legal evidence adduced by plaintiff and does not suffer from any infirmities or any illegalities. On re-appreciation, no error is found in the judgment under challenge. 11. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is based on legal evidence adduced by plaintiff and does not suffer from any infirmities or any illegalities. On re-appreciation, no error is found in the judgment under challenge. 11. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.