THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO A.S.No. 1103 of 2001 Dated: 10-06-2011 Between: M/s Sri Kanakadurga Agencies .. Petitioner And The K.C.P. Limited (Ramakrishna Cements) Macherla .. Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO A.S.No. 1103 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The defendant in O.S.No.86 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.1,29,620/- being an amount due towards supply of the cement by the plaintiff to the defendant from 10.01.1993 to 23.11.1994. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendant was a stockist and the defendant was receiving stocks of cement and making payment but as per the statement of the account for the period 1993-1994 the goods worth Rs.93,924/- were supplied and the defendant has not paid the amount. A legal notice was also given and hence, the suit. The defendant pleaded in the written statement that he did not receive the goods and is not liable to pay the suit amount. The defendant pleaded that his signatures were forged and, therefore, is not liable to pay the suit amount. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the suit account is fabricated? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and on behalf of the defendant, he was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked. After considering the material and the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala decreed the suit of the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 18.07.2000, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala is legal and sustainable? 3. To what relief? POINTS 1 to 3: In order to support the claim of the plaintiff, P.W.1, who is an employee of the plaintiff company, was examined and he has no personal knowledge about the transactions but he spoke about the transactions based on Exs.A-1 to A-3 and also about the issue of legal notice Ex.A-1 for which, evidently, no reply was given by the defendant. According to the case of the plaintiff, the account was opened in the year 1993 and the suit amount was due for the period relating to the year 1993-1994. As against this case of the plaintiff, the evidence of defendant goes to show that he had account till the year 1992 with the plaintiff and he stopped the business and has closed all the transactions and he did not receive the goods as deposed by P.W.1 and as reflected in Ex.A-2 and A-3 and, therefore, is not liable to pay the suit amount. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that there is no proof of delivery of the cement to the defendant and there is no proof that there were transactions after 1993 between the plaintiff and the defendant and the vouchers with regard to the delivery of the cement and supply are not filed and in the absence of such evidence the decreeing of the suit is not valid. In this case, it is to be noted that in the chief-examination the defendant admitted that he has got transactions till 1992 with the plaintiff. But in the cross-examination he has stated that he was not a stockist of the plaintiff at all. The version of the defendant is that he had dealings with the plaintiff but they were only upto the year 1992 and thereafter there were no transactions. This plea was not there in the written statement. In the written statement what was stated is that the entire accounts are fabricated and the signatures are forged. In fact, there are no signatures but the suit was only filed on the basis of the accounts maintained by the public company in the course of business, which has got evidentiary value. The evidence of P.W.1, therefore, clearly goes to show that even prior to 1993-1994, the defendant has got transactions but the plea that he has stopped the business and did not go for purchase of the cement after 1992, is not believable, in view of the fact that such a plea was not raised in the written statement. If really, the earlier dealings between the plaintiff and defendant were closed in 1992 and the defendant has stopped the business as against the entries in Exs.A-2 and A-3, the defendant also should have produced his own accounts to show the particulars of the transactions. The defendant has not done so. On the other hand, when a legal notice was given under Ex.A-1, no reply was also given. The plea taken by the defendant is of a casual and routine nature to deny the liability and the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A-2 and A-3, which are the extracts of the accounts maintained by the company, clearly show the supply of the goods on different dates and the liability of the defendant. Therefore, for all the above reasons, I do not accept the plea of the defendant that he had no transactions with the plaintiff and that the suit claim is not proved. Having failed to take the plea of the closure of the accounts in Ex.A-2, the denial of the liability is not bona fide. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly accepted the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-3. However, the suit was filed claiming interest at 24% per annum. Taking into consideration of the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if the interest at 12% per annum is granted on the principal amount as against 24% per annum granted by the lower Court. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs.93,924/- (Rupees ninety three thousand nine hundred and twenty four only) with interest at 12% per annum from 16.12.1994 to 16.07.1996 and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Each party to bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 10-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO A.S.No. 1103 of 2001 10-06-2011 MR