Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 66 (TRI)

Sadhan Ch. Deb v. State of Tripura

2022-02-11

ARINDAM LODH, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in case no. MS 37/2016. 2. The plaintiff-appellant [here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff] had instituted a suit for realization of money worth Rs.19,33,248/- along with interest from the defendant-respondents [here-in-after referred to as the defendants]. It is the case of the plaintiff that he supplied spare parts of motor vehicles and also repaired many vehicles of the police department since 2003. The respondents had paid some of the bills as raised by the plaintiff. But, they did not pay the remaining balance bills as stated in the plaint. Against these assertions made by the plaintiff, the defendants have stated that the claim of the plaintiff is baseless, imaginary and unjustified. It is the further case of the defendants that without any break-up or specific mention of the bills, it is not possible for them to detect or identify the bills against which supply order they did not pay. 3. During the course of hearing learned Civil Judge has framed the following issues:- i. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature? ii. Has the plaintiff cause of action to institute this suit? iii. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a sum of Rs.19,33,248/- from the defendants? If so, is the plaintiff entitled to get any interest thereof, as prayed for? iv. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree, as prayed for? v. What other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 4. Heard Mr. D.R.Chowdhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.C.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. While deciding the issue of maintainability, learned trial court held that the claim upto the period of 22.08.2013 is barred by limitation. Learned trial court has further observed that the plaintiff did not try to call the author of the supply orders to admit his hand writing. As such, the supply orders cannot be said to be proved. We have gone through the bills. It is found that the bills were not proved in accordance with Section 67 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. As such, the supply orders cannot be said to be proved. We have gone through the bills. It is found that the bills were not proved in accordance with Section 67 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Moreso, he being the plaintiff has to plead each and every facts transparently in support of his claim and first burden lies upon him to substantiate the facts, which he failed to discharge. So, we are unable to interfere with the findings of learned trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim. 6. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Send back the LC Records.