Madras High Court
S.Vivekanandan vs Selva Stone Export Ltd on 4 February, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
AS No.122 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-02-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AS No. 122 of 2022
S.Vivekanandan
Proprietor, Subbu Associate, 92/26, Pollachi
Road, Udumalpet, Tiruppur 642 126
Appellant(s)
Vs
1.Selva Stone Export Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director,
Sy 399/1-S,
Salinayanapalli Village,
Emakkalnatham Post,
Barugur, Near Highway Road,
Krishnagiri 635 104
2. Govindachetty Selvaraj
Managing Director,
M/s.Selva Stone Export Ltd
3. Mohan Selvaraj
Director,
M/s.Selva Stone Export Ltd
4. Munusamy Saravanan
Director,
M/s.Selva Stone Export Ltd
5. Kandasamy Elaango
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS No.122 of 2022
Director,
M/s.Selva Stone Export Ltd
Respondent(s)
Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgment and
decree dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Tiruppur in O.S.No.228 of 2020 and to set aside the same.
For Appellant(s):
L.Mouli
For Respondent(s):
No Appearance
ORDER
This Appeal Suit has been filed against the judgment and decree dated
03.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in
O.S.No.228 of 2020 by the appellant, seeking to set aside the same.
2.Challenge in this Appeal is made to the judgement and decree of the
trial Court dismissing the suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,63,522/-.
The suit has been proceeded that the plaintiff started Granite business and
the defendants have supplied the granite on the supply order placed by the
plaintiff. Such orders have been placed from 12.05.2015 onwards. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiff is maintaining proper accounts in respect of day today affairs. The
transactions went up to 13.03.2017. Thereafter, the defendants have not
supplied the granite. When the plaintiff requested the defendants to supply
the granites as per the supply orders placed, the defendants have shown only
defective granites. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendants to return
the amount paid in respect of the supply order placed by him. However, as
there was no response, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice on 26.02.2020.
Thereafter, the defendants have paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of cash
on 10.03.2020. Therefore, the suit has been filed within 3 years from the
date of the last payment made on 10.03.2020.
3.A defence was taken by the defendants 1 to 4 by way of filing a
Written Statement adopted by the 5th defendant, that the 5th defendant is no
way connected with the transaction and only the defendants 1 to 4, were in
the affairs of the Company and there were transactions between the plaintiff
and the defendants in respect of supply of the granites and the same went up
to 13.03.2017. However, it is denied by the defendants that they paid cash
of Rs.20,000/- on 10.03.2020 to the plaintiff. According to them, the suit is
barred by limitation and it is the further contention that despite the fact that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the granites were available, the plaintiff has not taken delivery of the same.
In this regard, E.mail has also sent to the plaintiff. Hence, the defendants
opposed the suit.
4.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the 5th defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit?
(ii) Whether the statement of account of the plaintiff is correct?
(iii) Whether the suit claim is in time?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?
(v) To what relief?
5.On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4
were marked. On the side of the defendants, no oral or documentary
evidence was adduced.
6.The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence and documents,
has found that the suit is barred by limitation and held that the version of the
plaintiff that the defendants paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in cash on
10.03.2020, has not been established and therefore, the suit has been barred
by limitation. Challenging the same, the present Appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that so far as
the payment of Rs.20000/- by the defendants in cash has been clearly
reflected in the account maintained by the plaintiff. Therefore, the limitation
has been reckoned from that date, the trial Court has not taken this aspect
into consideration and erroneously dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.
Hence, he would submit that the decree and judgment passed by the trial
Court, have to be reversed.
8.Now, the points arise for consideration in this appeal are, whether
the plaintiff has proved the accounts in the manner known to law? and
whether the suit was barred by limitation?
9.So far as the business transaction of placing the supply orders and
supply of granites is not disputed by the defendants. Whereas, the plaint
proceeds as if the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.17,35,695.58, on
the basis of the accounts maintained by the plaintiff. Except the plaintiff as
PW1, nobody has been examined to prove the accounts that have been
properly maintained in the regular course of business. Further, the person,
who is in-charge of the plaintiff's business and who maintained such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accounts regularly, has not been examined. The trial Court has clearly
recorded the findings that from Ex.A1 statement relied upon by the plaintiff,
there was no transaction with regard to the debit or credit between the
plaintiff and the defendants. The trail Court, taking entire statement of
accounts of the plaintiff as true, has rightly recorded the findings that there
was no transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants after 2018.
Now the suit has been filed only on the ground as if the defendants have
paid a sum of Rs.20000/- by cash on 10.03.2020. Therefore, there is a
period of 3 years limitation reckoned from the payment of such cash. It is
relevant to note that in a business transaction, particularly, where the
defendant is a Company, any such payment is intended to be made,
normally, the same will be made only through cheque or Bank transfer.
Therefore, it is highly improbable to contend on the part of the plaintiff that
defendants Company had paid cash on a particular date, by virtue of which,
the suit is within the period of limitation. Therefore, merely some entries
in the statements are sufficient to prove the accounts. Statement of accounts
should be fool-proof. Such entries ought to have been made regularly during
the course of business. The statement of accounts should be established by
way of proving each and every entry in respect of business transactions that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had taken place between the parties. The trial Court, has rightly held that the
entry made in the statement of account in regard to payment of cash alleged
to have been made by the defendants, is a self serving entry and cannot be
believed at all. Therefore, when the statement of accounts have not been
established, the consequent result would be that factually there was no
payment of Rs.20,000/- in cash by the defendants and it has been invented
by the plaintiff only for the purpose of limitation. Accordingly, the points
are answered in favour of the respondents/defendants herein.
10.In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
04-02-2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order:Yes/No
dn
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J
dn
To
1.The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
04.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
