R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) CALL for the record. Since C.S. Kotwani has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent, therefore, the notice need not be issued to the sole respondent.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dt. 17.12.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that plaintiff pressed the case merely on the basis of bill dt. 12.06.2006, wherein allegedly the appellant had bought sixty -three bags weighing one quintal each, priced at Rs. 729 per quintal. Secondly, according to the plaintiff although the said wheat was bought and delivered to the appellant, the appellant failed to make payment for the said wheat. In order to buttress his contention, the plaintiff had submitted a copy of the bill. According to the learned counsel, the entire case is based on the existence of the bill (Ex. 2). However, the bill does not contain the signature of the appellant or any of his agent. Moreover, the plaintiff in his testimony could not reveal the person who has taken the delivery of the bags. Although the plaintiff claims that he had the record of the Sales -tax Department as well as the record of Income -tax Department, he did not produce the same before the learned trial Court. Furthermore, according to the appellant, a fake bill has been submitted. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, he neither ordered, nor received any bags of wheat from the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff did not maintain any books of account which contained his signature. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove the fundamental facts of the case that the wheat was ordered and delivered to the appellant. Lastly, the learned judge has merely relied upon conjectures and surmises in order to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Most importantly, the learned judge has drawn an adverse inference against the appellant ostensibly on the ground that although he claims that he had maintained the account books, but he had not produced the same. According to the learned counsel, the weakness of the defendant does not strengthen the case of the plaintiff. As it is for the plaintiff to first establish his case through cogent evidence. In the present case, the cogent evidence is conspicuously missing. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that the operation of the judgment and decree be stayed.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent -plaintiff has contended that although the appellant had claimed that he had maintained account books, he has failed to produce the same. Hence the learned judge was certainly justified in drawing adverse inference. Moreover, he has relied upon Exhibit -13, a certificate issued by the Sales -tax Department, in order to prove the fact that wheat was actually sold to the appellant.;