FA/588/1984 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 588 of 1984 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI =================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? =================================== HAJARIMAL SHARMA MAVAWALA - Appellant(s) Versus NATIONAL COAL SUPPLY CO. - Defendant(s) =================================== Appearance : MR SURESH M SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR PREMAL R JOSHI for Defendant(s) : 1, =================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 FA/588/1984 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.1223/80 dated 25.1.1984 whereby the defendant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5600/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has supplied goods to different parties under the instruction of the defendant and on non-payment of those parties the defendant was requested to make the payment. Subsequently demand notices were issued and the suit came to be filed which was decreed as aforesaid. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the trial court has given contrary finding in the judgement itself. It was submitted that on one hand in para 8 it has been given finding that the defendant is not the purchaser and on the other hand in para 11 the finding is given against the defendant. 4. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is found that the crucial document is at Exh.69 which is written on 17th September 1977 by M/s Hajarilal & Brothers Mavawala. In the said FA/588/1984 3/3 JUDGMENT letter it is stated that in all six bills for a sum of Rs.5026/- is outstanding and the same will be paid. It was further stated that undue haste may not be made since they are the purchaser for quite long and frequent demand for small amount would not look good. It was ascertained that they are also traders and therefore the payment will be made. 5. The contention which has been raised is not supported the case of defendant inasmuch as the assurance given in Exh.69 makes reference to the amount as well as the bills which are part of the suit. Apart from that Exh.69 is dated 17th September 1977 and thereafter two notices were issued to the defendant, but he has not replied to the same. 6. In the above view of the matter I am of the view that the order passed by the trial court is just and proper and no interference is required. Hence this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI,J.] ar