IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY APPEAL SUIT No.1943 OF 2001 Between: Vijetha Agro Farms Limited Rep., by its Managing Director & another ..... Appellants AND United Technologies, Rep. by its Proprietor, his authorized agent and attorney S. Umasankar .....Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY APPEAL SUIT No.1943 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 29-06-2001 in O.S. No.81 of 2000 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. 2. The case of the respondent – plaintiff is as follows: i) Respondent firm is a proprietary concern owned by one Swamy Lakshminarayana, and one Uma Sankar is his authorized agent and power of attorney to conduct business on his behalf. Petitioners – defendants are under the common management and initially they purchased 11 computers from the respondent on 01-07-1999 and paid the amount due. Again, petitioners approached the respondent for supply of 21 computer systems with LG colour monitors for their publication division by paying advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque and the respondent supplied the same worth Rs.7,98,000/- to them and issued a credit bill on 13-02-2000 for Rs.7,98,000/- and they paid Rs.4,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 17-02-2000 towards part payment. Thereafter, in spite of repeated demands by the respondent for payment of balance amount of Rs.2,98,000/-, instead of paying the same, petitioners got issued a legal notice with false allegations. Therefore, respondent filed the impugned suit for recovery of balance sale consideration of Rs.2,98,000/- with interest thereon and for future interest. ii) Petitioners filed written statement denying the allegations in the plaint alleging that supply of computers was not of the make and quality ordered by them and instead of supplying Samsung monitors, respondent supplied 20 LG colour monitors worth Rs.1,42,000/-, 20 keyboards worth Rs.7,000/- and one monitor and keyboard worth Rs.38,000/-, totalling to worth Rs.1,87,000/-, and the respondent undertook to replace LG colour monitors with Samsung monitors, but did not do that. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount ? 2) To what relief ? 4. To establish its case, respondent examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the petitioners, DW.1 was examined but no documentary evidence was adduced. 5. On consideration of the material on record, the trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.3,07,933/- with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on Rs.2,98,000/- from the date of suit till realization. 6. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in spite of there being no material, the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit and that there was misleading and cheating by the respondent by supplying the computers of different make and quality, which were defective, and in spite of repeated requests there was no replacement of the material as undertaken by it. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal. 8. There is no serious dispute about the appellants purchasing 21 computers from the respondent only, as it reveals from the legal notices Exs.A-4 and A-5 that were exchanged earlier between the parties and from the pleadings that the respondent supplied computers to the petitioners, they received the same, made part payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheques and they are due of remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.2,98,000/-, though at the later stage the appellants wanted to plead that they have purchased the computers from someone else and not from the respondent. The evidence of PW.2, Ex.A-3 letter dated 10-02-2000 and Ex.A-2 delivery receipt dated 11-02-2000 also reveal that 21 computers were delivered to the petitioners and in fact they made part payment of Rs.5,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.7,98,000/- . 9. Thus, there is no serious dispute with regard to supply of 21 computers by the respondent to the petitioners and their due of Rs.2,98,000/- towards part sale consideration of the computers. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no merits in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J August 19, 2009. PV