Associated Journals Ltd. vs Ajant Offset And Packing Ltd.
2006 Latest Caselaw 901 Del

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.2.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. The plaintiff, M/s. Ajanta Offset and Packagings Ltd., which is a limited company filed a suit against the defendant, M/s. Associated Journal Ltd., which again is a limited company for recovery of Rs. 4,05,398/-. The plaintiff approached the court on the basis of the fact that an order was placed by the defendant upon the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in furtherance to these confirmed orders, delivered the printed materials to the satisfaction of the defendants, the details of which are as under:

  S.No.       Job                Bill No. and Date       Amount
 1.    National Herald
      50 years Supplement
      (printing)               323 dated 29-9-88       2,37,900/-
 2.   Bhilai (Completion of
      expansion project)       435 dated 27-10-88        11,225/-
 3.   National Herald 50 ye-
      ars      Supplement
      (Processing Scanning
      and Planning)            456 dated 3-11-88     2,14,713.92
      Total amount                                   4,63,838.92
 

2. Out of the above mentioned amounts the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 2,64,838.92. The plaintiff served a demand notice dated 16.4.1992 and claimed interest @ 18% per annum, but still no amount was paid resulting in filing of the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant and it was stated that orders were placed for publication of its supplements in connection with its Golden Jubilee function to be held on 9.9.1988, but the plaintiff failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the order. It was further stated that they did not perform the job completely and did not supply the materials in time. The time was the essence of the contract and the materials which were sent after conclusion of the Golden Jubilee Function were of no consequence, as such the plaintiff had not fulfillled its commitments. It is submitted that on the contrary, the defendant had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000/- for doing and completing the incomplete job. However, the bills and payments made were not disputed. On the basis of the above pleadings the Court framed 6 issues vide order dated 6.5.1999 and answered the issues against the defendant and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 4,05,398/- with interest @ 6% per annum. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant had no evidence to show the alleged discrepancies in the bills or the material and as payment of only Rs. 2 lacs was admitted, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. The court at great length referred to the statement of DW2 and found that he was not even trustworthy. Even the statement of DW1 could in no way further the case of the defendant. The said witness did not give details of transactions or the alleged defects of the goods. In fact, he could not even tell as to which officer of the plaintiff had he discussed the issue in regard to the receipt of the delayed materials. He declined to state before the court whether the entire material had been supplied. Keeping in view this stand of the defendant and the fact that the plaintiff had been able to prove his case by documentary and oral evidence and the most pertinent fact being that the defendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff to a great extent, the decree of the learned Trial Court hardly calls for any interference. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant hardly questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment on merits or with reference to the evidence on record. The thrust of the submissions is that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by time as each bill was an independent cause of action and they were not transactions maintained on mutual accounts. According to him, the claim based on earlier two bills would be barred by time as the suit was filed in the year 1992. This argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is without any merit. Firstly, it is not the stand taken by the defendant in its written statement. Of course, an objection is taken that the suit is barred by time but without specifying the basis on which such a plea was taken. The written statement refers to a composite agreement between the parties and specifically states that the finished product could not be supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff, by the stipulated date, thus, jeopardising the interest of the defendant. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff had mentioned these bills specifically and then had stated that the total sum of Rs. 4,63,838.92 was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and they had received three different payments on different dates making a total of Rs. 2 lacs, thus leaving a balance claimed with interest. In the written statement the stand taken was not that each bill is an independent transaction and no mutual account was being maintained but what was stated was that the claim of the plaintiff was wrong and denied and they are contrary to the terms of the agreement. It was clearly admitted in the reply that payments were made in relation to parts of consignments. It was not disputed that part payments i.e. a payment of Rs. 1 lakh, Rs.50,000/- and two payments of Rs. 25,000/- each were made on 25.10.1988, 7.2.1989, 9.5.1989 and 17.8.1989 respectively. In view of the specific pleadings of the parties, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant before us cannot be accepted. In fact, the same is neither supported by pleadings nor by any evidence.

4. For the reasons afore-stated, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed in liming, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.