FIRM SOHAN LAL KISHAN LAL Vs. TALWARIA BROS
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Firm Sohan Lal Kishan Lal
Referred Judgements :-
V. RAMCHANDRA AND ORS V. RAMALINGAM AND ORS.
Click here to view full judgement.
S.S.BYAS, J. -
(1.)THIS is plaintiff's civil second appeal who lost its suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4400/ - in both the lower courts.
(2.)THE plaintiff which is a registered partnership firm, instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 4400/ - against the defendent firm in the Court of Civil Judge, Ganganagar. According to the averments made in the plaint, certain transactions took place between the parties as a result of which a sum of Rs. 4360.42p. stood due against the defendant firm. A notice was issued to the defendant firm calling upon it to mike the payment of the aforesaid amount, The attempt proved abortive. The plaintiff -firm, therefore, instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4360.42p. as principal and Rs. 39.58p as interest thereon. The total claim was for the amount of 400/ -. The suit was constested by the defendent firm. The main defence taken by it was that the defendent had made a payment of Rs. 4360.86 p. to the plaintiff on February 20, 1968 and obtained receipt Ex. A2. The trial court held that the payment as pleaded by the defendant has been made to the plaintiff and receipt Ex A 2 was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff in lieu of the aforesaid payment. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. The plaintiff went in apple which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge. Ganganagar. It was contended before him by the plaintiff that receipt Ex. A2 was not genuine and no payment as alleged by the defendant has been made. The learned Additional District Judge concurred with the finding of the trial court. He also held that receipt Ex. A2 was genuine document executed by or on behalf of the plaintiff firm The payment of Rs. 46086 p. was made under the aforesaid receipt to the plaintiff by the defendant. The appeal was consequently dismissed. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff -appellant raised two contentions before me which according to him were not properly appreciated and taken into consideration by the courts below.
(3.)THE first contention is that receipts Ex. A2 was not filed by the defendant along with the written statement. In the written statement, though the existence of the receipt was alleged, it was not filed for the reason that it was not readily available. It was argued by Mr. Mehta that had this receipt been in existence at the time of filing the written statement, it must have been filed along with it. The non -production of receipt Ex. A2 along with the filing of the written statement is a major circumstance to make it a suspicious document.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.