Bela M. Trivedi - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -original defendant no.4, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.11.1991, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in Civil Suit No.11/85, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent -original -plaintiff. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent -original -plaintiff filed the suit seeking recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 23,805.45 and interest amount of Rs. 18,568.00, in aggregate, for recovery of Rs. 42,373.45. It was alleged by the respondent -plaintiff that the plaintiff had sold the goods worth Rs. 83,578.89, to the defendant during the period from 2.11.1978 to 15.2.1980, and the defendants had made the payments on various dates as per the details given in para 6 of the plaint, to the extent of Rs. 69,000/ - and therefore, the amount of Rs. 23,805.45 had remained outstanding. It was further alleged that the defendants had made last payment of Rs. 500/ - by cash on 3.12.1982. The plaintiff had also claimed the interest amount of Rs.18,568/ -, on the said principal amount and thus filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 42,373.45 paisa. The said suit was resisted by the defendants by filing separate written statements denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the suit was barred by law of limitation.
(2.) THE trial Court, after framing the issues and appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide the impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant -original defendant no. 4 has preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. The learned counsel Mr.V.K.Tamoliya taking the Court to the evidence led by the parties before the trial court vehemently submitted that the suit of the respondent -plaintiff was barred by law of limitation in as much as the last entry dated 3.12.1982 for the payment of Rs. 500/ - by cash shown in the books of accounts of the plaintiff was false and not genuine. According to Mr.Tamoliya, no such payment of Rs. 500/ - by cash was made by any of the defendants as alleged by the plaintiff and such entry in the books of accounts was made by the plaintiff with a view to bring the suit within the period of limitation. He further submitted that the books of accounts relied upon by the plaintiff were also not genuine and were not maintained in the regular course of his business. Pressing into service Section 34 of the Evidence Act, he further submitted that mere production of books of accounts would not be sufficient for the plaintiff to prove his case. Mr. Tamoliya has relied upon the judgments of Hon. Supreme Court and other High Courts in support of his submissions.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel Mr. S.C. Gupta, for the respondent submitted that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has decreed the suit, which does not call for any interference of this Court. Mr. Gupta further submitted that none of the defendants had entered into the witness box to prove the pleadings, and that the only witness examined by the defendants was the power of attorney holder of the defendant no. 4, who could not have the personal knowledge about the payment made by defendant no. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff.;