THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR City Civil Court Appeal No.52 of 2001 Dated:- 16th June, 2011 Between:- M/s.Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd., Appellant AND The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., and another Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR City Civil Court Appeal No.52 of 2001 JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2000 passed in O.S.No.144 of 1999 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by first respondent herein for recovery of suit amount was decreed. 2. The appellant herein is the first defendant, the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the second defendant before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.144 of 1999 before the Court below for recovery of Rs.17,86,876-54 Ps towards the value of the goods supplied to the defendants. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the registered companies and the second defendant is the Managing Director of the first defendant company. The plaintiff’s specific case is that, at the request of the defendants, they made credit supplies of steel wire rods under Exs.A.1 to a.27 invoices, but the defendants failed to make payment towards the said credit supplies. The defendants issued a cheque for Rs.13,70,000/- towards part payment but requested the plaintiff to defer the presentation of the cheque for encashment. Finally, when the cheque was presented in the bank on 30.06.1998, it was dishonoured on the ground of “insufficient funds”. After issuing legal notice, the plaintiff filed the suit before the Court below. 4. The defendants filed written statement and denied the supplies said to have been made to them by the plaintiff. They also denied that a request was made by them to the plaintiff to defer the presentation of the cheque. 5. The Court below framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiff supplied steel wire rods to the defendants at any time under various invoices on credit, and if so, (2) Whether the defendants are liable to pay the said amount; and (3) To what relief. 6. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 – Archala Kumar, Manager of the plaintiff’s company was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.36 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendants, rebutting the evidence of the plaintiff. 7. The Court below, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved its case and, accordingly, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant is before this Court as appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/first defendant submitted that though the defendants did not adduce any evidence, the plaintiff has to prove its case and that the evidence on record is not sufficient to decree the suit. It is also his submission that though the plaintiff filed 27 invoices marked as Exs.A.1 to A.27, it is not clear whether the said invoices pertain to the transaction referred in the suit. It is also his submission that before laying the suit, the plaintiff has not issued any demand notice. It is also his submission that the rate of interest awarded by the Court below is exorbitant and unreasonable. 9. We have perused the entire record. As can be seen from the pleadings, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that supply of steel wire rods were made as per the requirement of the defendants and that the said material was duly delivered to the defendants. The plaintiff’s further case is that the defendants, even after the lapse of the credit period, did not make any payment towards the supplies made by them and that the cheque issued by the defendants towards part payment of the amount due to it, was not honoured. 10. As against this specific averment, the defendants, in their written statement, averred that the averments made in Para No.1 of the plaint are partly true. With reference to Para No.2, the defendants averred that those averments did not call for any reply. It has to be seen that the plaintiff, in Para No.2 of the plaint, had specifically averred that the supply of steel wire rods were made as per the defendants’ requirements. Thus the averment of the plaintiff that supply of steel wire rods were made on the request of the defendants as per their requirement, stands admitted. It is settled law that admitted facts need not be proved. Moreover, P.W.1, who is working as Manager of the plaintiff’s company, had categorically deposed about the supplies made by the plaintiff. According to him, Exs.A.1 to A.27 are the invoices under which the steel supplies were made to the defendants on credit basis and Exs.A.3 to A.41 are the delivery orders showing the supply of steel to the defendants. P.W.1 further deposed that Ex.A.28 is the letter dated 29.06.1998 from the second defendant – Managing Director of the first respondent firm requesting the plaintiff to defer the presentation of the cheque issued by him. Therefore, the above referred document in Ex.A.28 is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff has proved its case. The evidence on record also reveals that the cheque issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff’s firm was bounced. If at all there was no due amount to be paid by the defendants, there was no need for the defendants to issue the cheque and Ex.A.28 letter. 11. In view of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the Court below has rightly decreed the suit. The impugned judgment of the Court below is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and, therefore, no interference is required. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 12. However, since it appears that the rate of interest on the loans being advanced by the lending banks for commercial purpose during that period was 15%, we consider it just and reasonable to reduce the rate of interest of 19.5% which awarded by the Court below to 15%. Except the modification of the rate of interest, the judgment and decree of the Court below stands confirmed in all other respects. 13. Subject to the above modification of the rate of interest, the appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. _____________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah __________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 16th June, 2011 Bvv