IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 AS.No. 692 of 1997(E) ------------------------------- [OS.NO.361/1992 OF SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA] .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR. RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. EAST INDIA SALES AND AGENCIES (P) LTD., MARKET ROAD, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOSEPH ANTONY. 2. JOSEPH ANTONY, PROPRIETOR, EAST INDIA SALES AND AGENCIES (P) LTD., MARKET ROAD, THODUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AS No.692 of 1997-E ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 2nd November 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is by the plaintiff. The first defendant is shown as a private limited company, represented by its managing director. The second defendant is shown as the proprietor of the first defendant. One fails to understand how a company gets a proprietor. The second defendant, who mounted the box, deposed that he has nothing to do with the first defendant company. The plaintiff had different dishonoured cheques with it, allegedly issued by the defendants. In spite of having those cheques, the plaintiff thought it convenient to sue on the basis of accounts. Yet, it did not produce the books of accounts and produced only the photocopy, which was denounced by the court below with reference to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Insofar as the documentary evidence is concerned, the court below rightly held that the evidence was AS 692/97 2 scant in favour of the plaintiff to connect the transactions, particularly Exts.A7, A8, A9 and A10, to the second defendant. On evaluating the entire evidence on record, we find that the court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the plaint claim. No sustainable grounds are made out warranting interference with the decree and judgment of the court below. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta AS 692/97 3