A D Doddamani vs M/S Chayagraphics on 5 October, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

A D Doddamani vs M/S Chayagraphics on 5 October, 2010

Bench: Ravi Malimath

IN THE HIGH COURT OF--K}\R-AIATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 57" DAY o? OCTOBER 2010*,
BEFORE  

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALz_M'ATH~..'c.ii  » A

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.328 oi=-i.2ioo5_T   "

BETWEEN:   

Sri A.D.Doddamani

M/s  » A
Vidy5_3nagar;<i',\.»     _ -
Hublija - ~  ...APPEE.LANT

(By Sri iV\?iAaiIAii~:atju_riVa._for:Hegde Associates, Advocates)

  M/Vs} Ci'a~ayagraphics
"NoA;24B,--4"'3/lain Road,

 AA By its.Partner Sri Krishna Prasad.

B~a__ngavi0r_e}'-- 560 018,
A re.gi"stered Partnership firm rep.

...RESPONDE§\|T

 Sri K.K.Vasanth & M.Rajakumar, Advocate for C/R)

>i<>i<*

F4"



This RFA filed under section 96 R/W Ordei*',?41.f",R,u'ive 1
CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated"2'8;1.Q.'::;QO4

passed in O.S.No.351D/1991 on the file.._"ofi.,t:he"l
Addl.C§ty Civil Judge, Bangalore city,»....'§CcHV.No.3%1},.b'1_
decreeing the suit of the respon:deht--hereinfor-vrecVovveryv--.of j '

money.

This RFA coming ons'fo..r' hearivng  

delivered the following:--

   

Aggriewéd  byi,  thlejf JLi:dgr_nen't  and decree dated
28~1O--2OO4:_r3ass'e.d.:b§{jt:h'e._X§(X'vjAdditiona| City civil Judge,
Bangjalorexi"nV:O~.S;.l§lVo,3516/1991 decreeing the suit of
the pAl'a§,ntiff  money, the defendant has filed
the -prese'4ntw-.a_p'pea|.."- A .

   parties would be referred to as per the

Ar'-ankin thlefltrial Cou rt.

"The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying

 on the business of dealing in X--ray films. There was an

agreement dated 19--5--1985 between the plaintiff and the

defendant wherein the defendant was to market the

to J M'

 a



products suppiied by the plaintiff in certain designated

Districts of Karnataka. Accordingiy, the defend_anVt'-waist'.

appointed as a sub--stoci<ist for the X--ray   

were suppiied and payments we;-'eW'be'ingﬁmadeli._ 

31-3-1990 the defendant became, due 

RS.82,966.41p/. As on the da"t«e:VV"o.f the 'su_it*-thedefendant if

was iiabie to pay a SLJfT'§~..'_0f _F~1s".i1",V3§i$55.0Sp/"co'nstituting
the baiance amount of Rs.-T7'; deducting the

discount char*ge~sVL:yI'--of interest of

Rs.32,f760/M'   refusal of the defendant to
make good thev..said'--aérnouint, the present suit has been
filed gseekinghf recovery'"of the said amount.

  appeared and denied the suit claim.

He"'i«con._t'ended that in terms of the agreement, material

was supplied for which the payments were being made.

7'_fh'at"éthere is no amount due from the defendant to the

 -»-pilaintiff. That ail the purchases have been made on cash

and carry basis, since no credit was offered to the

VA



defendant. It was therefore pleaded that;i"'th'eV~'.'__§u1it_r be
dismissed.

3. The trial Court_on_ frarn=ineg'--5 Issues.'vd_ecre;ed"the.
suit for a sum of Rs.1,14.7i'5:e6;O5p/V"a~!.o_ngV':with interest.
Aggrieved by the iljetendant has filed the

present appeal.

4. 'V  the learned counsel
appearienvg' tpheeieapjpelvlant/defendant contends that the
irr1Duéined--Judgrnejrirte&..deicr'ee is bad in law and liable to be

set_.aside."' ._:Tl'iat tl'ieVé"trial Court failed to consider the

'  rriat'er:i'a| evidencewon record while decreeing the suit. In

 'ere-felfs to the account extract produced by the

'plra:lnti'ff.':\e/'tde Ex.P--i53 to contend that it was wholly

 misread' by the trial Court. He contends that the material

 'e.vid'ence on record has not been appreciated by the trial

  ___§.'jourt which resulted in the erroneous Judgment & decree.

p,z\/a



Hence, he pleads that the appeal be ..be
dismissed. 2 it   V

5. Sri Vasanth, the iearn-e:d"V.counse.i  
the respondent/plaintiff   order and

submits that there    ma] Court
that calis for any  regard to the
interpretationitolf   that the ciaim
made  the amounts due by
 triai Court has rightly

interprertedt that the defendant is due in a sum. of F{'s.8:2,'9.6*6.3;-1p'/:-- and after deducting a discount of 'ti'-.'iis:'1i;i';97'O,36p/A9" """ the balance due is a sum of aiong with interest at the rate of 21% trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the.'vF3.Faintiff. He, therefore pieads that the appeai be = dismissed.

6. Heard counseis and examined the records.

7. The learned counsel appea'r'i'ngt.sVVV:'ior[_fth'e'__ defendant submits that the tria'i"'€--ourt_:fa_.i'.i'etdi]toV' cao.nst;aerj« the materiai evidence on recor;diVan.d"erro'ne'ou,siv the conclusion that the defen~dant."i5v._ojrincioai amount to an extent of Rsit.7'1;§'L96'§'G5.'p/ contends that the triai Court misreiadittreiIfisa:cti.on.'between the parties and came to[an._erroVnVe'otts piacing reliance on heeontends that it shows the ,iva|ii1e;'hivoftithee "~mAa:teriai"ti»s'Lipplied and the amounts recei--vAed.: disclose that on particuiar dates paid in excess of the materiaf sd'.ppi__iAedVV%and"'on.._c.e.rtain dates has paid amounts iess than ' dthe nja~teriai suppiied. However, he submits that eversince "...2"(v'ii'--7--v'1§79j_£%V.'i1'tVhe accounts Extract itseif discioses that no an'ioun_t.vis due from the defendant. The figures arrived at 2 'ib'y_thVe defendant at the end of the Accounts statement by caicufating the shortfali amount and excess of amount has been wrongfy shown as Rs.82,966--41p/. He therefore contends that on a plain reading of Ex.P-153 itseff, the suit i""~""

_*7_ of the plaintiff requires to be rejected. He further submits that the suit has been filed beyond the period of .!t'i"mitation and that the trial Court has faiied to consider_'4t_hyé--'.§)'ari"Qus payments made by him.

8. On the other hand_.~Sri_4Va.sa'nt'h:,'.';tthe.'_I_earnedg counsel appearing for the piaintiff+respon'de'ntu if that the accounts extract'l.ci"oa_rIy show.s_that5._;th--~e.re: wasa shortfall to an extent. of Rsy..524'3,6'85.8-ép/Randi the excess amount an of 4,60,719.67p/--. The figures are a's,_shown=..in"l.t'i1e"'*s'ai'd'. extract. Therefore the amount due" from.' tthe"plaér'stiff is Rs.82,966.21;3/--. He contends ._VthatE"the:'%'sa_id amount is a refiection of the entire accounts I the parties eversince 26--6'--1985. Ail the a«moL_1'nts«:""paid by the defendant have been taken into .. ;account and hence there is no error so far as Ex.P--1S3 is V"co'ncerned nor that the trial Court has misread the payment made in terms of Ex.--153 .

iziw amounts due from the defendant is Substantial quantity of materiafs have bVee'n_:.suf_p.ol'ied ford' the next 3 years. On the finalisati'on.o.f trie.:_'acc.o:untsat 7. regular intervals, the accounts 'l'e.xtra.ct there is no amount due since 20.7.1988. The arr'i:oe.i&nts'."doa_i'd:--:'tcfthée plainitiffé are to an extent of the Hence, the accounts disclose that the defendaritj'Vis':.:r:ot'due towards the plaintiff. The'lies-rynéedjcounsel for the plaintiff relies on thetotal a.VrrixvAed'1at'§.'ide Ex.P--153 with regard to the short .VfTail.aEnd excess. He contends that the short fall is to I of-1"Rs.5,43,685.88p/-- and the excess of the sum..__v'of.A:"'A4,6O,719.67p/-- and hence the balance ,is._' re-I82,9e6.21p/--. After giving a discount of if'q_"Rs--.'iO,970.36p/-- the amount due is to an extent of

--7:Rs.71,996.OSp/-. On an explanation sought for, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the said rt"

-10-

figures are the total commencing from transaction between the plaintiff and the_.Vd'efend'antl T' said figures as made out in the account extracts from 26f.6_--19EV3d5..A:'t--he dateyfon "wh*ich the material was supplied, up which the amount was total "between the short fall and the Rs.82,966.21p/--.

There is why the account showed 5 effect from 2o--7-1988.

AssumingilAt'i5ie co:nte'nti"'on_ ofjthe plaintiff is acceptable, the accou'rit_s'woul~d'Vn.ece'ssar'l'l'y have to disclose the relevant figures for the relevxant period of time. However, the sa.me notfreflected. accounts extract does not disclose as to amount of Rs.82,966.21p/~ is arrived at in c"o..ntra'st-.A:*"to the particular statement of account _ commencing from 20-74988 that shows a Nil balance in if ftcrrns of Ex.P--153. It is therefore evident, that in view of

-Tithe accounts statement produced by the plaintiff himself, the defendant is not due for any sum towards the plaintiff. t"/W ...11_

11. The triai Court while considering accepted the same without any reason by~'..':h'oIdisngf"tha'_t since Ex.P~153 shows that the defendant iiabl'e to pay an amount of Rs.82,966.21p/;',.Vthe_f piaintiff has his case against the defefld-.d:Fi"t..,b There 'isyfhobciiscuffssionff' whatsoever by the trial"CouArt"'as:_:'toffwhy hasvcjhosen to accept the contents of §E'>&._e_P'--15.33"rfior:a're_»..:t'E:ere any reasons forthcoming .r:VT~he.._acc"ep'tance of oniy the figured in _At'hfe_~vVt_ota%| at; Ex.P~1S3 and not to the contents .._of ithevw._e'riti'i-e_'"e.§§"hi'bit by the trial Court, without any;'r'easonsV-.iys"'unsi;'stainab|e and hence liabie to be inférfefed iiiii "The trial Court accepted the '~do.currive4n't.a_tioi'hfproduced by the plaintiff without affording any. rea'so-nsffor the same. The primary document with reg_ard"~to the debt of the defendant being Ex.P-153 and if '~~t_Vh'e~same having been accepted without any demur by the

-«trial Court therefore caiis for interference. W' ._12..

12. In view of the aforesaid findings"it--«'..'vyouii:i_j_"be unnecessary to go into the other issues-.~.--in~..v'i*ew.Aof__they finding that the defendant is not dii.e'xfvor*iiany ''surn::V-t_ov':eréds '' the piaintiff as reflected in -E_x.P--Vi5_3', nan:iI'e%§y; accvounit» extract produced by the Ifam of the considered view byﬂthe triai Court in decreeing the and is iiabie to be set the Judgment and the decree.__of set aside. The suit of the piainticff is d.isV_'n'1'i'ssec-'. .No costs. *v._The'vi.d:eposit made by the appeilant before this Court " .is"directed_ to be reieased in his favour. .1 sai-3"

Euéqé Rsk/--

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court