THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.No.1130 of 1994 Date: 18.11.2011 Between: Mullapudi Gangadharam another. ..... Appellants. AND Kadel Vasudev Singh. .....Respondent. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR A.S.No.1130 of 1994 JUDGMENT: The defendants 1 & 2 are the appellants. The sole plaintiff is the sole respondent. The plaintiff laid the suit for a sum of `.1,30,000/- or the amount actually due from the defendants to the plaintiff. 2 . The suit was decreed granting a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred the appeal. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that in May 1979, there was an oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 that the plaintiff should supply wooden logs to the defendants for sale, that the defendants shall sell the product at Rajahmundry and make over the profit to the plaintiff. The plaintiff who was a resident of Madhya Pradesh and present resident of Chattisgadh State claimed that 2849 logs of timber was supplied on 28-05-1979 through the 1st consignment (called Pattee) and 449 logs of wood through the 2nd consignment on 15-07-1979. The plaintiff further claimed that he never maintained accounts, that the defendants maintained accounts and that as the monies have not been paid and the accounts have not been finalized by the defendants, the plaintiff seeking for a direction to the defendants to render accounts and to pay the amount due by the defendants to the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 04-10- 1982 under Ex.A4. The defendants issued a reply under Ex.A5 on 15-10-1982. Along with Ex.A5, account copy under Ex.A3 was furnished by the defendants to the plaintiff. 5. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and contended through the written statement that on 24-02-1979, the plaintiff and his father entered into an agreement with M/s.Gangadhara Timber Merchants, Rajahmundry for supply of timber. The defendants further pointed out that 4% commission was payable to the defendants on the timber sold. The defendants allegedly took over M/s. Gangadhara Timber Merchants subsequent to 24-02-1979. 6. The defendants submitted through the written statement that the plaintiff supplied 592 logs on 28-06-1979 and 437 logs on 31-07-1979 and that certain monies were paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. They claimed that Ex.A3 account copy shows the amount due from the defendants to the plaintiff. They, however, contended that their accounts show that an amount of `.1,51,676/- was found due from the defendants to the plaintiff and that the defendants had already paid `.1,46,087/- to the plaintiff, so much so `.5,589/- alone was due from the defendants to the plaintiff. 7. The trial Court framed as many as eight issues. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 to 3 in support of his claim including the plaintiff as P.W.1. The defendants examined as many as six witnesses. The 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1. Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.B1 to B32 were marked. Exs.X1 to X6 were also marked in the case. Primarily the documents marked by the defendants are the resolutions by the timber merchants. 8. As rightly submitted by Sri M. S. Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the defendants, issues 1 to 3 are crucial. They relate to supply of timber and the amount due by the defendants to the plaintiff. 9. Unfortunately, there was an error in Para No.6 of the written statement wherein the defendants contended that 1434 logs were sent in all by the plaintiff to the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that even according to the plaintiff, the total logs sent by the plaintiff to the defendants came to 1298 whereas the logs actually supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants was only 1029. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the number of 1434 logs as mentioned in the written statement was a typographical or inadvertent mistake and that emphasis could not be laid on the same. 10. At any rate, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants and as admitted by Sri Ch. Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the plaintiff, the crucial document is Ex.A3. Albeit, Ex.A3 is filed by the plaintiff, it is the account copy as submitted by the defendants. The defendants cannot go back on Ex.A3. Indeed, the defendants would not appear to be going back on Ex.A3. Ex.A3 not only discloses the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants, it also discloses amounts due by the defendants to the plaintiff. Added to it, the agreement dated 24-12-1979 is found to be correct between the parties, albeit, it was between the plaintiff and third parties as can be seen from the Ex.B3. The defendants who stepped into the shoes and took over M/s. Gangadhara Timber Bamboo Commission Merchant cannot now turn round and question the Ex.A4. They also cannot question the account as shown in Ex.A3 as the defendants themselves filed Ex.A3 account copy. The plaintiff is placing his claim on Ex.A3. Where the defendants themselves issued Ex.A3 and where they admit the same, the defendants cannot now go back and deny their obligation to the plaintiff as shown in Ex.A3. The defendants are liable to answer the claim of the plaintiff. 11. In this background, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are perfectly justified. There are no merits in this appeal. This appeal is accordingly found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:18.11.2011 mrb