THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT Nos.659 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.08.2009 in O.S.No.82 of 2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.
2. M/s.G.Bhoomareddy and Company represented by its Managing partner G.Bhooma Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2004 against Adilabad District Co-operative Marketing Society, represented by Business Manager, Adilabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,57,644/-. The trial Court examined P.W.1 on behalf of the plaintiff and marked Exs.A1 to A11 on its behalf and D.Ws.1 & 2 were examined on behalf of the defendant. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs for an amount of Rs.4,92,372/- with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendant therein preferred the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant mainly contended that respondent/plaintiff settled the amount with the appellant and found due of Rs.4,92,372/- and after the said 2 settlement, respondent/plaintiff lifted back fertilizers worth Rs.1,63,498/- on 21.04.2001 and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was also paid to the respondent/plaintiff on 25.01.2001 and the appellant will be due an amount of Rs.2,78,874/- and thus the claim of the respondent that appellant is due an amount of Rs.4,92,372/- is false and they also stated that suit was barred by limitation. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff was dealing business in Fertilizer, Pesticides and Seeds and appellant/defendant was also dealing with the business of fertilizers in Adilabad district. The appellant/defendant had purchased fertilizers from respondent/plaintiff Company and sold to farmers and other agencies. The respondent/plaintiff has supplied fertilizers to the appellant/defendant on credit as per the Order. Later, appellant/defendant defaulted in making payments, as such respondent/plaintiff settled the account and lifted back remaining material from the appellant/defendant of various deposits worth Rs.1,63,498/- from 21.04.2001 to 24.04.2001. The appellant/defendant was due an amount of Rs.5,42,372/- and he assured to pay the remaining balance immediately, but paid only Rs.50,000/- on 25.06.2001 and 3 failed to pay the balance of Rs.4,92,372/- in spite of repeated demands, as such respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the said amount. Whereas, appellant/defendant stated that respondent/plaintiff settled the account and found due of Rs.4,92,372/-. After the settlement, respondent/plaintiff lifted back fertilizers worth Rs.1,63,498/- on 21.04.2001 and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was also paid by them on 25.01.2001 and thus there was only due of Rs.2,78,874/- and they were not liable to pay interest @12% as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff. They also stated that there was no cause of action for the plaint and no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit, as he was not authorized.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant herein contended that payments were due from 21.04.2001 to 24.04.2001 and the suit was filed after three years two months i.e., on 30.06.2004, as such suit was barred by limitation, but the perusal of the record shows that plaint was filed on 23.04.2004 and thus it is well within the limitation. In the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant, they admitted regarding due of Rs.2,78,874/- and stated that they were not liable to pay 4 interest and further requested to grant time for payment of amount in installments @ Rs.3,000/- per month.
6. The trial Court observed that D.W.1 was examined in-chief on behalf of the defendant, but he did not appear before the Court for Cross-examination, as such his evidence in-chief was eschewed on 02.06.2009. The trial Court also examined D.W.2 on behalf of the appellant/defendant. He stated that after the settlement, appellant/defendant was due an amount of Rs.4,92,372/- to the respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter, respondent/plaintiff lifted back the remaining stock of fertilizers worth Rs.1,63,498/- on 21.04.2001 and on 25.01.2001 they paid Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff and thus the amount due by the appellant/defendant was only Rs.2,78,874/-, but in the Cross-examination, he stated that he did not file any document to show that respondent/plaintiff agreed to receive Rs.2,78,874/- and he also stated that he did not know about the settlement arrived at between the respondent/plaintiff and appellant/defendant. The trial Court observed that as D.W.2 could not file any document regarding the settlement arrived at for Rs.2,78,874/-, appellant/defendant has to pay due amount of Rs.4,92,372/- to the respondent/plaintiff as on 25.06.2001 and decreed the suit for 5 the said amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The respondent/plaintiff in his evidence stated that after getting back the stock worth of Rs.1,63,498/-, the balance due by the appellant/defendant was Rs.5,42,372/- and after deducting Rs.50,000/- that was paid on 25.06.2001, the amount due by the appellant/defendant was Rs.4,92,372/- and the said amount was admitted by the appellant/defendant, but stated that later he withdrawn the stock worth Rs.1,63,498/- and also paid Rs.50,000/-, as such there was only due of Rs.2,78,874/-, but D.W.2 did not file any document to substantiate his version, as such this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court.
7. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree dated 07.08.2009 in O.S.No.82 of 2004 passed by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 03.11.2023 tri 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.659 of 2009 DATE: 03.11.2023 TRI