IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 FAO.No. 114 of 2006() --------------------- AS.156/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE OS.416/2004 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------- M/S. SAGAR AGENCIES, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.P.SATHYAPALAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. RAMUNNI. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------- M/S. KERALA FOOTWEAR PRODUCTS, KAMMATH LANE, NAGARAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT, A.GANESHBABU, S/O. VASU, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 114 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of remand passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Kozhikode in A.S.156/05. The suit is one for realisation of an amount for the supply of dyes and it is supported by account book which is Ext.A3. An amount of Rs.20,314.30 is the amount claimed. The defendant would contend in the written statement that the amount claimed is not correct or due and the accounts are not maintained properly and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief. The trial court on an exhaustive consideration of the materials granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff but the learned Additional District Judge found that the account is not properly proved and therefore set aside the judgment and decree and directed the trial court to consider the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the plaintiff. It is challenging this order the plaintiff had come up in appeal. F.A.O. 114 OF 2006 -:2:- 2. Learned counsel for the appellants strongly contends before me that the approach of the Court below is incorrect and the Court has not ascertained the real amounts due from the books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff and therefore this Court should interfere and reverse the judgment of the appellate court and confirm the decree of the trial court. 3. The learned counsel had invited my attention to a decision of the Patna High Court reported in Ramgobind Prasad v. Gulab Chand AIR 1941 Patna 430. The learned counsel relying on that decision would contend that it is not necessary to prove each and every particular transaction independently if the transactions are proved properly. Now the learned appellate judge had relied on a decision of this Court reported in Narayanan v. Indian Handloom Traders (1999(1)KLT 700). The learned Judge by referring to S.34 held that entries in the books of accounts should not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. The learned judge held that F.A.O. 114 OF 2006 -:3:- “It is clear from a bare perusal of the section that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of entries in books of account, even where such books of accounts are kept in the regular course of business. There has to be further evidence to prove payment of the money which may appear in the books of accounts in order that a person may be charged with liability thereunder, except where the person to be charged accepts the correctness of the books of account and does not challenge them.” 4. Now, as far as this case is concerned the real transaction is in relation to purchase of materials from the plaintiff's company and amount due is the balance as per the account. Whether any amount is due to the plaintiff or not is the first material to be looked into. For that a reference to paragraph 8 of the written statement would almost show that the defendants have admitted that amount is due to the plaintiff. It is stated therein “the payments of these disputed supplies were therefore kept in suspense to the knowledge of F.A.O. 114 OF 2006 -:4:- the plaintiff. Therefore the person's demand for payment of the disputed amounts without first settling the dispute raised is very bad basis considering the trade relations.” Materials were purchased and amount was due to the plaintiff from the defendant is a fact which is almost admitted but Ext.B1 would reveal that there was some dispute between them with respect to quality of the supply between the defendant and the manufacturing company. It has to be understood that the plaintiff sells only manufactured products available with him to the defendant and if there is any dispute between the manufacturing unit and defendant the plaintiff may not be responsible for the same and if there is bad quality it is for the defendants to take action against the manufacturer and not to sue the plaintiff who had supplied materials to it. So a close reading of the written statement would convincingly reveal that the defendant had purchased materials from the plaintiff and had not made any payment of certain amount on account of the dispute regarding the quality of the materials supplied with respect to the defendant and F.A.O. 114 OF 2006 -:5:- manufacturing unit. Now it is in this back ground we have to analyze the evidence. 5. Then the learned counsel for the appellants had submitted before me the account list for years together and there is no sort of any manipulation and the person who had entered the accounts into the computer had been examined and he had given evidence. I had gone through the evidence of PW1 in this case including cross examination. He would depose that the ledger relates to the transaction which is of a continuing process and the books of account is prepared on the basis of the vouchers and receipts. It is true that he had deposed before Court that apart from the books one has to examine all the accounts but tell precisely what is the amount due. It does not mean that what is entered in the accounts book is incorrect. He had admitted that he is a clerk cum accountant of New Anand Sagar Colour Merchants. He has subsequently stated what is recorded in the accounts is not collected by way of information from the plaintiff. So when a person who had prepared the accounts with reference F.A.O. 114 OF 2006 -:6:- to the materials and entered it in the computer, it has to be given evidentiary value especially in the back drop of the admission in the written statement regarding the statement made by the defendant to the plaintiff. I can understand that if that admission is not there one may have to call for a better evidence. But when it is specifically challenged that certain amount is due to the plaintiff and it is discernible on account of the dispute between the manufacturer and the defendants it has to be stated that the transaction is admitted at least in part and the evidence of PW1 who had entered these things clearly in the books of accounts has to be given weight. I had perused Ext.A3 and pages 288 and 289 of the account book deals with accounts of the defendants for a purchase of Rs.65,075/- and the receipt as Rs.44,726/- and the closing balance as Rs.20,314/-. Therefore I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that materials available are sufficient to prove the transaction. Therefore the order of remand under challenge is set aside and I hold that there is F.A.O. 114 OF 2006 -:7:- no need to interfere with the decision of the Additional Munsiff in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore the judgment and decree of the trial court is confirmed and that of the appellate court is set aside and this FAO is allowed. I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-