Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The defendants have denied having arranged any delivery of alleged paper for printing to the plaintiff vide challan Ex PW 1/3 and state that it does not ever bear any signature or seal of the defendants or even the paper supplier. The printing and delivery of books is also denied and the signatures/ initials of Mr. Meet Kumar on the invoice Ex PW 1/5 are stated to be forged and Sunrise Offset Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meet Kumar Page No. 5 of 33 fabricated. It is the contention of the defendants that during the 2nd week of March, 2007 Mr. Neeraj Sharma and his wife visited defendant no. 1's house and told his father Mr. Praveen Kumar that they had come to see them and during conversations reminded about his (Neeraj Sharma's) press at Sahibabad (U. P.) and asked for some printing job. That although defendant no.3 i.e. Mr.Praveen Kumar was not inclined to get the printing job done due to long distance between Sahibabad and Rohini and also the press of plaintiff not having pre-print process facilities but on repeated persuasion of door- step service offer with 15 days' credit facility, defendant no. 3 agreed for small trial order with clear stipulation that since job order was given in respect of school book for the coming academic session, it had to print within the time schedule. That on 15.03.2007 somebody from the side of the plaintiff came to defendant's house and collected the job order adn film positives from Mr. Praveen Kumar and it was again made clean to representation of plaintiff that printing must be finalized Sunrise Offset Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meet Kumar Page No. 6 of 33 and the printed material delivered to the defendants by 25.03.2007 so that defendants could hand over it to their clients before 31.03.2007 i.e. before opening of schools. It is further stated by defendants that thereafter on 17.03.2007 some other representative of plaintiff brought one Ammonia pre-print proof of one set of eight pages only to get defendants' print order to start printing and insisted upon Mr. Praveen Kumar to issue a post dated cheque for entire amount although the same was to be issued after completion of entire job, however, in good faith, due to old acquaintance, it was issued for Rs. 1,00,800/- with date 10.04.2007 with clear instruction to present it only after delivery of entire material. But after receipt of cheque, job became very slack and defendant no. 3 had to visit the press again and again but Mr. Neeraj Sharma was not available in the press and finally when Mr. Neeraj Sharma met defendants on 28.03.2007 he informed that his printing machine had developed some technical fault and therefore he would not get the job done and thus defendant no. 3 was forced to cancel Sunrise Offset Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meet Kumar Page No. 7 of 33 the job order of plaintiff and had to get the same executed from some other source urgently and further repeatedly requested the plaintiff to return the said cheque but plaintiff did not return it. That the goods were never delivered by plaintiff to defendants and the cheque in question was grabbed by the defendants clandestinely who even did not send a protest to the defendants after discovering that the cheque was dated 18.04.2007 instead of dated 10.04.2007 as expected by the plaintiff.

That plaintiff also issued tax invoice Ex PW 1/6 and delivered it to defendant no. 1 against his acknowledgment.

17. On the other hand, it is contended in the WS that though issuance of cheque Ex PW 1/7 is not denied but the same was signed by defendant no.1 only as authorized signatory of M/s Vanity Book Club and not in the capacity of its proprietor who is actually Mr. Praveen Sunrise Offset Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meet Kumar Page No. 18 of 33 Kumar, the father of defendant no. 1 and that defendant no. 1 had no personnal dealing with plaintiff. The story of defendant is that it was Mr. Neeraj Sharma (director of plaintiff) and his wife who came at the house of defendant and requested for order of printing job to which defendants agreed for a small trial on repeated persuasion and on the basis of acquaintance with his father. The defendant further alleges that plaintiff gave 15 days credit with door step service. It is stated by defendant that due to old acquaintance the said cheque Ex PW 1/7 was issued with stipulated date 10.04.2007 and instruction to present it only after delivery of entire material. But on 28.03.2007 plaintiff informed defendant no. 3 that his printing machine had developed technical fault and therefore the job could not be done. That neither any printed books were delivered to defendants nor defendant no. 1 signed over any invoice Ex PW 1/5 or Ex PW 1/6. The cheque Ex PW 1/7 got dishonored due to alteration on the date from 10.04.2007 to 18.04.2007 probably with the object of falsely establishing that the Sunrise Offset Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meet Kumar Page No. 19 of 33 job was completed on 03.04.2007 and on the basis of 15 days credit, got presented it for payment on 18.04.2007 but the bank detected the over-writing in the date and returned it unrealized.

24. The plaintiff/ PW-1 has admitted that he did not produce any accounts pertaining to M/s Sunrise offset works and M/s Sunrise Mediation consultants. But Sunrise Offset Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meet Kumar Page No. 29 of 33 merely not producing the said accounts cannot discard the transaction as occurred between plaintiff and defendants.

25. In the cross-examination of defendant no. 3/ DW-1 dt. 06.07.2010 he was questioned about the cheque being voluntarily given against supply of printed material. The witness DW-1 has replied that he have the cheque after lot of persuasion by Mr. Neeraj Sharma and it was taken by him even before the job was started and not against the supply of printing material. While in the WS para 7 at page 8, it is stated that some other representative of plaintiff brought one Ammonia pre-print proof on one set of 8 pages and assured about remaining proofs and insisted for a post dated cheque. Thus it cannot be said that cheque was given even before the work started and not against supply of printing material. It is also observed that in cross-examination of DW-1 dt. 06.07.2010 he deposes that he does not know if the order for printing was cancelled on 28.03.2007 which runs to the averment in WS para 7 at page 9. It is Sunrise Offset Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meet Kumar Page No. 30 of 33 pertinent to note that the witness DW-1 admits to the suggestion in his said cross-examination dt. 06.07.2010 that inspite of non-supply of printing material, he did not ask the plaintiff's company to return the cheque. Further the witness DW-1 deposes that regarding the supply of books to Army school he cannot say and he does not know if he can search out the acknowledgment of the delivery of books. The DW-1 has admitted the photostate copies of the positives running into 22 pages filed by the plaintiff.