Radhavallabh vs Madanlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 12865 MP

                                                   1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

                                  BEFORE
                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIERENDER SINGH

                           ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 54/2003

BETWEEN

        RADHAVALLABH, S/O RAMCHANDRA MANDOVARA,
        AGED 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR MAHAVEER UDYOG,
        VIKAS NAGAR, NEEMUCH, M.P.
                                     .. APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

        (BY SHRI SUNIL JAIN, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI SHYAM
        PATIDAR, ADVOCATE)


        AND

        MADAN LAL, S/O FAKEERCHAND PRAJAPAT,
        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION-BUSINESS,
        R/O WALTOLI, NEEMUCH, M.P.
                                      RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

         (BY NONE)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         This appeal coming for final hearing this day, the court passed the following


                                           JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 23.7.2002 passed in OSC No. 09-B/2001 by II Additional District Judge, Neemuch, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal before this Court.

2. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 62,739/- and was decreed only for Rs. 8,295/. The suit for rest of the amount claimed was dismissed observing that the claim was time barred.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that the plaintiff was a coal trader and the defendant was a bricks manufacturer. For manufacturing of bricks, he used to purchase coal from plaintiff on

credit. He purchased coal worth Rs. 11,770 from the plaintiff on 12.9.1997, worth Rs. 7,150/- on 11.10.1997,worth Rs. 6,270/- on 25.10.1997, worth Rs. 7,009/- on 1.12.1997, worth Rs. 9,240/- on 2.2.1998 and worth Rs. 8,295/- on 15.2.1998. Thus from 12.9.1997 to 15.2.1998, he purchased total coal worth Rs. 49,734/- on credit. He paid towards this amount, only Rs. 4,000/- on 5.4.2000 and even after verbal reminder and service of legal notice, he didn't pay the rest of the amount, therefore, claiming interest @ 1% per month on the balance amount of Rs. 45,734/-, the plaintiff preferred a suit for recovery of total Rs. 62,739/- (principal + interest Rs. 7,005/-).

4. Defendant contested the suit with the complete denial of the facts relied upon by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that both the parties were in commercial transaction. The cost of the coal purchased by the defendant prior to 1997 was duly paid and after settlement of those old accounts, they stopped dealing with each other. It was further submitted in the additional pleading that the plaintiff was a money lender and he has neither maintained the record nor has served the statement of accounts, therefore the suit is not maintainable. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit with a special cost of Rs. 10,000/- for unnecessarily harassing him.

5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues and recorded its finding before them.

                         fooknd                                          fu"d"kZ
     •    D;k oknh ls izfroknh us fnukad 12-09-1997 ls ysdj 15-02-1998
         rd 49][email protected] :- dk dks;yk m/kkj dz; fd;k Fkk\                       gkWa

• D;k oknh dks izfroknh us fnukad 05-04-2000 dks /kUuw iztkir ds ek/;e ls 4][email protected]& :i;s Hkqxrku fd;s\ gkWa

• D;k oknh fcy dh 'krZ ds vuqlkj vo'ks"k jkf'k ij ,d izfr'kr ekfld C;kt izkIr dj ldrk gS\ ugha

• D;k ;g okn le;kof/k esa gS\ flQZ 15-02-1998 dk :- [email protected]&dk okn le;ko/kh esa gSA 'ks"k okn le;ko/kh esa ugha gSA

• D;k oknh dk okn mldh Lo;a dh tkudkjh esa feF;k ;k ijs'kku djusokyk gS\ ;fn gkWa rks bldk izHkko\ ugha

• vuqrks"k ,oa ifjO;;%& vuqPNsn dzekad 35 ds vuqlkj oknh ds i{k esa [email protected]&:- rFkk bldk jkf'k ij 15-02-1998 ls 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd egkokj C;kt rFkk flQZ yrk d vuqlkj esa lQyrk ds vuqlkj esa okni= o"kZ fMdzh nh xbZA

6. After recording evidence of both the parties and appreciating the evidence produced by them the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had supplied coal worth Rs. 49,734/- between 12.9.1997 to 15.2.1998 to the defendant. On account of this credit, the defendant paid Rs. 4,000/- on 5.4.2000 through Dhannu Prajapat but the claim of the appellant is time barred and therefore cannot be decreed. The claim of the plaintiff only in respect of Rs. 8,295/- was found within time and the suit was decreed to that extent only. Interest @ 6% was also allowed from 15.2.1998.

7. Learned senior counsel argued that since the transaction as well as part payment as claimed by the plaintiff has been found proved by the trial Court itself, it (the trial Court) erred in considering that the part payment does not give a fresh limitation to the plaintiff to claim the recovery of the amount due towards the defendant.

8. The issue raised before this Court dealt with in Para 29 of the

judgment of the trial Court. There is no dispute that the transactions as claimed by the plaintiff were done between 12.9.1997 to 15.2.1998 while the suit was filed before the Court on 14.2.2001. Thus, all other transactions, barring transactions dated 15.2.1998 had taken place before three years of filing of the suit. The alleged part payment said to be made through Dhannu Prajapat was admittedly made on 5.4.2000 i.e. again after three years of the amount found due towards the defendant. In such an undisputed situation of fact, no doubt remains that the suit was filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court beyond the prescribed limitation of three years and since the part payment was made after expiry of the limitation, as per the settled law, it does not gives a fresh limitation or cause of action to the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. The trial Court further concluded that the part payment was not in writing and was not acknowledged by the defendant therefore, also it does not give a fresh limitation to the plaintiff.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the transaction taken place before 15.2.1998 and allowing the claim of the plaintiff for the transaction taken place on 15.2.1998. No ground for interference in the impugned judgment and decree is made out.

10. Therefore, the appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed.

11. The decree be drawn up accordingly.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE

Vatan

Digitally signed by MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Date: 2022.09.29 16:28:26 +05'30'