- (1.) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 29.4.92 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 37/84, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent No.1-plaintiff directing the appellant and the respondent No.2-defendants to pay Rs. 17,940.12/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realisation.
(2.) IN the instant case, the respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking recovery of Rs. 17,940.12/- against the defendants alleging interalia that the defendant No.1 was a society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and defendant No.2 was the Branch Manager. As per the case of the respondent-plaintiff, the defendant No.2, Branch Manager, had placed the orders on various dates for the purchase of pesticides, which were supplied by the plaintiff by issuing various bills, as detailed in the plaint. According to the respondent-plaintiff the amount of Rs. 14,960/- had remained unpaid out of the said bills which the plaintiff was entitled to recover with interest amount of Rs. 2500/- and, therefore, the suit was filed for the recovery of the said amount. The appellant-defendant had resisted the suit by filing the written statement contending interalia that the respondent No.2-defendant No.2 had no authority to place the order. In the alternative, it was contended that as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties, the plaintiff had to supply the pesticides and if the same were not sold by the defendant-society they were being sent back to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had to make adjustment of the bills accordingly. According to the appellant-defendant, the society had made excess payment of Rs. 1348.84/- to the plaintiff and, therefore, no amount as claimed by the plaintiff was due from the defendant-society. The trial court after framing as many as eight issues and considering the evidence on record decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Rinesh Gupta for the appellant that the trial court had misappreciated the evidence on record by decreeing the suit, inasmuch as the respondent-plaintiff had failed to produce the orders for the purchase of pesticides. Taking the court to the evidence on record as also the findings recorded by the trial court, it was sought to be submitted that the trial court had materially erred in not considering the payment of Rs. 4,500/- made by the defendant-society to the plaintiff.
(3.) HOWEVER the learned counsel Mr. Suresh Goyal for the respondents supporting the findings recorded by the trial court submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant-society had not denied the receipt of the goods supplied by the plaintiff and had failed to produce the necessary documents like stock register and, therefore, the trial court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.;