- (1.) (6th January, 2011) - Defendant-Amar Singh, having lost in both the Courts below, is in second appeal.
(2.) Respondent-Plaintiff-M/s Chiman Lal & Sons (Commission agents) filed suit for recovery of Rs. 68000/- against the Defendant-Appellant alleging that the Defendant is an agriculturalist. On his request, the Plaintiff opened Defendant's account in its account books. There were reciprocal demands between the parties. Defendant used to sell his agricultural produce through the Plaintiff and also used to take advance amounts as loan. On 16.05.2003, the Defendant after inspecting the account books of the Plaintiff, confirmed outstanding balance amount of Rs. 46,500/- to be due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. Entry to this effect was made in account books of the Plaintiff. The said entry was signed by the Defendant. Thereafter Defendant borrowed some more amounts from the Plaintiff on different dates. Some bonus amount was credited in his account. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 60081.90P remained due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff as principal amount. After 01.09.2003, the Defendant did not come to the Plaintiff to pay due amount or to sell agricultural produce. The Plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs. 60081.90P as principal amount, Rs. 7,533.10P as interest for pre suit period at the agreed rate of 24% per annum and Rs. 385/- as charges of legal demand notice served on the Defendant, thereby filing suit for recovery of total amount of Rs. 68000/-.
(3.) The Defendant controverted the plaint allegations. It was denied that running current account of Defendant was opened in account books of the Plaintiff. The Defendant, however, admitted that he used to sell his crops through the Plaintiff and used to receive the price thereof. The Defendant alleged that he never took any loan from the Plaintiff. He also denied the entry dated 16.05.2003 regarding balance amount of Rs. 46,500/- and also pleaded that the said entry is not properly stamped. Borrowing of various other amounts thereafter was also denied. The Defendant brought agricultural produce to the shop of Plaintiff on 03.10.2003 and went home on 04.10.2003 requiring the Plaintiffs partner to look after the produce. On 05.10.2003, when Defendant visited the Plaintiffs shop, he found his paddy crop not lying there. Plaintiffs partner claimed it to be his own crop. Various other pleas were also raised.;