Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sreerama Trading Co. Rep. By Partners vs Sri Raghavendra Fertilisers ... on 9 July, 2024
APHC010479112002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
FIRST APPEAL NO: 2302/2002
Between:
Sreerama Trading Co. Rep. By Partners and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Sri Raghavendra Fertilisers Pesticides ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. V MAHESWAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. B D MAHESWARA REDDY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
-
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short
'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/defendants challenging the Decree
and Judgment, dated 05.08.2002, in O.S. No.144 of 2000 passed by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool [for short 'the trial Court'].
The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the Suit seeking relief of the Suit claim
with an interest as prayed for in the plaint.
3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are
arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.144 of 2000, are as
follows:
The plaintiff company is a registered company doing business in
pesticides having headquarters at Kurnool in Dr.No.18/159 C2, Shop
No.18/149-C2 16 J.C.R.Complex, Nehru Road, Kurnool. The defendant is
the sole-Proprietor and he is doing business in the name and style of Sri
Raghavendra Fertilizers and pesticides situated at Kistaraopet village,
Pamulapadu Mandalam, Kurnool District. The defendant had transacted
business with the plaintiff firm from July, 1998 and continued till February,
1999. During the said period the plaintiff Company supplied pesticides to
the defendant firm to the value of Rs,4,57,281/-.
After receiving the pesticides, the defendant had made payments on
various dates which are totaling to Rs.93,500/-. The defendant made his
last payment of Rs.20,000/- on 08.02.1998 and the outstanding amount of
the defendant is of Rs.3,63,781/-. Inspite of the repeated demands made by
the plaintiff company, the defendant had failed to pay the suit amount.
Therefore, the plaintiff company got issued a legal notice to the defendant on
01.06.2000, demanding payment of the outstanding due. Thereafter, the
defendant has sent a reply on 15.07.2000, denying the entire transaction.
As the defendant is doing pesticide business and as per the usage and
custom, the interest claimed is at 24% p.a. and also the cause of action had
arose at Kurnool, where the plaintiff company had transacted the business
with the defendant firm. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.
5. The defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments
mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -
The defendant is not carrying on pesticides and fertilizers in
Kistaraopet and he is not a customer of the plaintiff firm and also he did not
transacted any business with the plaintiff firm between July, 1998 to
February, 1999 or at any point of time. The defendant did not visit the
plaintiff firm in any of its addresses he also did not placed any order in any
item at Kurnool. It is the case of the defendant that he did not receive any
supply sent through the transport and the invoices, lorry receipts or the
account extracts do not fastens any liability on the defendant and the
alleged transactions are fabricated for the purpose of Suit and no cause of
action had arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Kurnool.
As per the recitals of the legal notice issued on behalf of the plaintiff
firm, no cause of action had been arose within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Court at Kurnool and even on going through the plaint documents also
the dispatch point is shown at Nandikotkur. The defendant did not receive
any goods from the plaintiff and the suit claim is also not proved. Therefore,
the claim is not genuine and he sought for the dismissal of the Suit.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following
issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff Firm is a registered partnership Firm?
ii. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
iii. Whether the suit is barred by time?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?
v. To what relief?
7. During the course of the trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the
plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined and marked Exs.A1 to A63 and on
behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 is examined and Ex.B1 is marked through
P.W.2.
8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both
sides, the trial Court dismissed the Suit with costs vide its judgment, dated
05.08.2002, against which the present appeal is preferred by the
appellants/plaintiffs in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment
passed by the trial Court.
9. Heard Sri.V.Maheswar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. No
representation on behalf of the respondent.
10. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by
the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made
by the appellants before this Court, the following points would arise for
determination:
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the
suit?
2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial
Court needs any interference?
11. Point No.1:-
Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the
suit against the defendant?
The case of the appellant is that the appellant is a registered
partnership company having headquarters at Kurnool and the defendant is
the sole-proprietor and he is doing business in the name and style of Sri
Raghavendra Fertilisers and pesticides situated at Kistaraopet village,
Pamulapadu Mandalam, Kurnool District. The plaintiff had further pleaded
that the defendant had transacted the business with the plaintiff firm from
July, 1998 and continued till February, 1999. The plaintiff pleaded that
during the said period the plaintiff company had supplied pesticides to the
defendant firm to the value of Rs.4,57,281/- and subsequently, the
defendant made a payment of Rs.93,500/- and the last payment is of
Rs.20,000/- on 09.02.1998 and subsequently, the defendant failed to
discharge the remaining outstanding amount and that the plaintiff is
constrained to file the suit
12. The contention of the defendant is that the defendant is not a
customer of the plaintiff firm and the defendant is not carrying on pesticides
and fertilizers business in Kistaraopet. The respondent further pleaded that
there are no business transactions in between the plaintiff and the
defendant from July, 1998 to February, 1999 at any point of time. He
further pleaded that the defendant did not place any work order with the
plaintiff and the Court at Kurnool has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.
Since the defendant pleaded the denial of the supplying of stock by the
plaintiff under credit, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the
plaintiff had supplied pesticides to the defendant on credit basis and later
the defendant made part-payments and he has to pay the remaining
amount.
13. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to
A63. There is no whisper in the Ex.A3 to A26 that whether the goods were
supplied to the defendant under credit. The plaintiff also relied on Exs.A27
to A39 (lorry receipts) and signature of the Proprietor of the defendant firm
or his clerk is not at all there on the Exs.A27 to A39 (lorry receipts). The
plaintiff had also relied on the Exs.A42 to A44 duplicate receipts which
contains the signature of the alleged clerk of the defendant Firm by name
Eswaraiah. The respondent severely contended that he never engaged any
person in the name of Eswaraiah, as his clerk and the plaintiff also relied on
the Ex.A45 receipt alleged to have been signed by the D.W.1. But the
plaintiffs failed to prove that Eswaraiah is the clerk of the defendant. The
D.W.1, disputed the signature on the Ex.A45 receipt. But the plaintiffs failed
to prove that the alleged Ex.A45 receipt contains the signature of D.W.1. As
per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the defendant used to receive the stock
at Nandikotkur, through Kranthi Transport.
14. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the defendant
used to receive the stocks at Nandikotkur, through Kranthi Transport. It is
not in dispute that none of the invoices, lorry receipts and also the delivery
challans contained the signatures of the D.W.1, the sole-Proprietor of the
defendant fertilizers or his alleged clerk. As per the evidence of the P.W.1,
they will maintain an order book and in the said order book, the particulars
of the order placed with them by the customers will be mentioned in the
order book. For the reasons best known to the appellants, the alleged order
book is not at all produced before the Court below to show that the plaintiff
had placed the work order with the defendant.
15. The Ex.A5 shows that the column regarding the order is kept blank
and the P.W.1 admits that none of the delivery challans were filed into the
Court. The P.W.1 also further admits that they have not filed any bills into
the Court to show that the goods were sent to the defendant. The plaintiff
also examined another witness by name P.Nagi Reddy as P.W.2. As per the
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the goods were sent to the defendant to
Nandikotkur, through Kranthi Transport. But P.W.2 had admitted that no
record is placed before the Court to show that the defendant had received
the pesticides sent by the plaintiff firm through Kranthi Transport.
16. The plaintiff firm also filed a ledger extract before the Court below, but
the same is not at all marked and the plaintiffs had failed to get exhibit the
same and the defendant got marked the ledger extract through P.W.2 as
Ex.A63 and the Ex.A63 is the copy of invoice No.139, dated 10.02.1999. As
per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant made his last payment on
08.02.1999, under Ex.A45 receipt dated 07.02.1999. But, subsequent to the
Ex.A45 receipt dated 08.02.1999, no pesticides were sent to the defendant.
The case of the plaintiff is that, subsequent to 08.02.1999, no stocks were
sent to the defendant. As per the Ex.B1, the pesticides worth of Rs.14,800/-
were sent to the defendant on 10.02.1999, it was not at all explained by the
plaintiff.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellants Firm has failed to establish
that the goods were sent to the defendant from Kurnool and the same was
received by the defendant. Furthermore, the appellants Firm had failed to
establish that one Eswaraiah is the clerk of the defendant Firm and the
appellants has also failed to prove that the signatures obtained on Exs.A40
to A44 belongs to the said Eswaraiah and the signatures obtained in Ex.A45
belongs to the D.W.1. Therefore, the plaintiff had failed to prove its case by
producing cogent, oral and documentary evidence on record.
15. Point No.2:-
Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court
needs any interference?
On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial
Judge had rightly held that the Court at Kurnool has no jurisdiction to
entertain the Suit and the plaintiff had also failed to prove the Suit claim by
producing relevant oral and documentary evidence and by giving cogent
reasons the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the suit. Therefore, the
Decree and Judgment dated 05.08.2002, passed by the learned trial Judge
is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference of this
Court.
16. Resultantly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the Decree and
Judgment, in O.S. No.144 of 2000 dated 05.08.2002, passed by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. On considering the circumstances of
the case, each party shall bear their own costs in the appeal. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal
shall stand closed.
_____________________________
V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Date: 09.07.2024
SRT
