IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA APPEAL SUIT No.874 of 1993 Between: Burla Jayaram ..... APPELLANT AND Andhra Pradesh State Meat Poultry Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Santhinagar, Hyderabad ..... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant being aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No.427 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The learned counsel representing for the appellant had taken this court through the grounds of appeal and would maintain that in the light of the same the appeal is to be allowed. 3. It is not in serious dispute that a common judgment was made in several suits and this appeal had been preferred as against the decree and judgment O.S.No.427 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. The pleadings in all most all the suits appeared to be similar and the issues decided also are similar. 4. Be that as it may, in the light of the facts and circumstances, the following points arises for consideration in this appeal: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the trial court in O.S.No.427 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam to be confirmed or to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 5. Point No.1:- The suit in O.S.No.427 of 1983 is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.73,169.72 Paise from the appellant – defendant and the allegations made in the plaint are as hereunder: The plaintiff A.P. State Meat Poultry Development Corporation is duly incorporated under Companies Act 1956. The main object of the plaintiff corporation is to establish, maintain and operate units in the State in manufacturing poultry equipment and poultry feed and to render financial assistance by supplying all poultry feed to poultry farmers on credit basis through its Regional Centres in the State and the latter has to repay the amount either in cash or kind. The defendant is a poultry farmer having his business at Government Dairy Farm, Visakhapatnam. He approached Regional Manager Poultry Marketing Centre at Visakhapatnam of the plaintiff Corporation for supply of poultry feed on credit. The defendant used to place an order for supply of poultry feed from time to time and the Regional Manager Poultry Marketing Centre at Visakhapatnam of plaintiff corporation used to supply the feed from time to time under acknowledgment either by the defendant or his agent or servant and the amount has to be paid either in cash or kind. Thus, the defendant on rendering accounts that the Regional Manager Poultry Marketing Centre (P.M.C.) of plaintiff corporation Visakhapatnam and as on 30-04- 1983 the defendant fell due a sum of Rs.78,099-67 paise. The defendant did not pay the said amount in spite of repeated requests and demands thereupon the plaintiff got issued lawyer’s notice dated 21-06-1983 to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount. The defendant received the said notice and sent a reply denying his liability to pay the amount. The defendant acknowledged the debt up to 31-03-1983. The extract of ledger account of defendant along with the original field for corporation and the plaintiff maintained account in regular course of business and final work. Hence, this suit for recovery of Rs.78,099-67 paise and costs and subsequent interest. 6. A written statement was filed denying the allegations. The defendant denied the allegation that one of the main objects of the plaintiff corporation is to establish, maintain and operate units in the State for manufacturing of poultry equipment and poultry feed etc and to render financial assistance by supplying poultry feed to the defendant on credit through the regional centers. According to him, he has absolutely no account or any dealings with plaintiff corporation and it is for the first time at the time of issuing notice that the plaintiff made its bills with a demand on the defendant for payment of alleged arrears due to the marketing center at Visakhapatnam. According to him, he is a self employment graduate poultry farmer. The allegation that he approached the Regional Manager P.M.C. Visakhapatnam for supply of poultry feed on credit as on 01-04-1983 or any other date. The P.M.C. at Visakhapatnam embarked on supply to mark good out of the bad feed as manufactured and began canvassing and pressing this defendant and other poultry farmers to switch on their feed as he is unemployed graduate by the Government to support self employment and as several pressures were being brought on him to switch on to the feed being manufactured by the poultry marketing center, he had no other go except to receive the supply on the specific understanding that if the feed proved he would not pay money except to the extent to which he would realize eggs. It was on the specific understanding that the defendant used to receive supply dumped on him as twitch the case of other farmers in Estate. According to him it is false to allege that the supply order for supply from time to time and same times that he received feed ad some times through his agents what all invented for the purpose of this suit and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of all those allegation to the effect of supply of feed several times as claimed by plaintiff and according to defendant he has never authorized any agent to receive feed on his behalf. He also denied that he is having running account with the plaintiff corporation. He also denied that the amount due to plaintiff as on 30-04-1983. He admitted that the plaintiff got issued lawyer notice and that he sent a reply denying the liability. According to defendant he never acknowledged the debt as stated because he has already denied his liability. According to him, the ledger if any maintained by plaintiff is only self serving and it is not binding on him. The plaintiff corporation never maintained any account in the course of business and if any such account is there, they are all concocted for the purpose of this suit. There is no cause of action in this suit and this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. According to him, earlier the Regional Manager threatened to destroy the property of defendant it was made clear to him that the demands are all false and concocted and represented to him with a bad feed forcibly through out on him against his will and therefore, he requested the plaintiff to wright off the book balance. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. 7. On the strength of this pleadings the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount ? 2. Whether the acknowledgment pleaded by plaintiff is true ? 3. To what relief ? 8. The learned Judge on appreciation of the common evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and DWs.1 to 7 and also the documentary evidence marked on behalf of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the suits may be decreed with proportionate costs with interest @ 6% p.a. 9. This court had carefully gone through the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial court. This court is thoroughly satisfied that the said findings do not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. 10. Point No.2:- In the result, the appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J April 16, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA APPEAL SUIT No.874 of 1993 April 16, 2010