THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1118 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.52 of 2001 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The amount was claimed as the cost of the pesticides supplied to the appellant in the course of business. The suit was resisted by the appellant by filing a written statement. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 16.03.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.57 of 2004 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was dismissed on 22.06.2007. Hence, this second appeal. Sri K.Goverdhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have taken temporary receipts as the sole basis and there was absolutely no proof as to supply of goods by the respondent to the appellant on credit basis. He further submits that in case the respondent supplied the goods on credit, the same would have been reflected in Day Book and the failure to file the Day Book is fatal to the claim made by the respondent. He contends that the appellant did not purchase any pesticides at all from the respondent. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? (2) Whether the defendant never purchased pesticides from plaintiff company? (3) Whether the account extract filed is not correct? (4) Whether the plaintiff company is entitled to suit amount? Thereafter they were recast as under: (1) Whether this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? (2) Whether the defendant purchased pesticides in the plaintiff company? (3) Whether the amount extract filed is correct? On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A119 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The suit was decreed. In A.S.No.57 of 2004 filed by the appellant herein, the lower appellate Court framed two points for its considerations, namely: (1) Whether the plaintiff is able to establish his claim as against the defendant? (2) Whether the view taken by the trial Court in finding the issues 2 to 4 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff is correct? The appeal was dismissed on 22.06.2007. The suit is filed for recovery of money. The respondent has not only adduced oral evidence, but also filed voluminous documentary evidence in the form of temporary receipts, permanent receipts and L.Rs. before the trial Court. The appellant does not dispute the genuinity of the receipts issued by it. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had purchased pesticides in the course of business, but denied the purchase of goods for which the amount is claimed. The occasion for a purchaser to sign a receipt would arise only when the goods are purchased on credit. If the consideration for the goods is paid, it is only the seller that has to issue a receipt and there would have not been any necessity for the purchaser to sign on the receipt. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have appreciated the evidence on record from the correct angle and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:15.04.2011. kdl