The Dist. Ttribal Welfare ... vs M/S. Vijaya Agencies,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3468 Tel

                 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN



           CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.274 OF 2001


JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree

dated 29.10.1999 passed in O.S.No.55 of 1989 on the file of the

IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and

whereby the claim made by the plaintiff was partly allowed,

granting Rs.77,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum

from the date of suit till the decree and at the rate of 6% per

annum till the date of realisation on the above amount.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is

the plaintiff. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are

arrayed in the trial Court.

3. The facts germane for consideration in this appeal are that

the plaintiff is the dealer in electrical motor pumps and on the

order placed by the defendants, he supplied electrical motor

pumps to various beneficiaries and the total cost of electrical

pumps supplied to the beneficiaries was Rs.5,15,225.20 Ps. Out

of which, the defendants paid Rs.4,33,755/- and the defendants

are due to pay the value of 14 electrical pumps, which were

supplied to the beneficiaries belong to Borraipalem and

Z.V.Guda Villages of Nalgonda District. In spite of several

reminders, the defendants did not pay the balance amount.

Hence, the present suit.

4. The defendants filed their written statement admitting

their placing orders for supply of electrical pumps to the

beneficiaries. According to them, the claim of 14 pumps by the

plaintiff cannot be given on account of mis-matching the

signatures of the beneficiaries. They also stated that according

to the acknowledgement, the motors were lifted by one Sevalal

and it is not known who has taken the pumps actually and

supplied to the beneficiaries. It is also pleaded that as per the

understanding, the price to be paid was only Rs.5,500/- per

pump. They claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any

amount since he has not established the pumps were supplied

to the beneficiaries.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have

been framed by the trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount from the defendants ?

2. To what relief ?

6. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined P.W.1 and

marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 is

examined and no document was marked.

7. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record,

found that the cost of each electrical motor which was agreed by

the defendants was only Rs.5,500/- per pump and the cost of 14

electrical pumps at Rs.77,000/- was awarded with interest as

stated herein before. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and

Decree, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for consideration is:

1) "Whether the trial Court committed error in granting part of the money decree" ?

2) To what relief ?

10. The facts which are not in dispute are that there was

supply order from the defendants for supply of electrical pumps

to the beneficiaries identified by them. The dispute is with

regard to 14 electrical pumps supplied to the beneficiaries of

Borraipalem and Z.V.Guda Villages of Miryalaguda Taluq,

Nalgonda District. According to the plaintiff, he supplied 14

electrical pumps to the beneficiaries and he obtained

acknowledgement showing delivery of the pumps and the same

was forwarded to the defendants.

11. The case of the defendants is that on verification of the

signatures forwarded by the plaintiff, with the signatures

attested by the Block Development Officer, they found that those

signatures are mis-matching and therefore, the plaintiff is

entitled to get back the pump sets from the beneficiaries.

12. Absolutely, there is no evidence from the defendants to

show that who actually compared the signatures and whether on

noticing the mis-matching of signatures, any enquiry has been

made to show whether the plaintiff actually supplied the

electrical pumps to the beneficiaries. The assumption of the

defendants is unsupported by any material. Further, the

defendants have not examined the officer who examined the

signatures furnished by the plaintiff with the signatures

obtained by the Block Development Officer. In the absence of

said evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff cannot claim

the amount and the plaintiff has not supplied the electrical

pumps to the beneficiaries. The trial Court rightly appreciated

the evidence and this Court finds no errors in the impugned

judgment.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

________________ M.LAXMAN, J.

Date: 15.11.2021.

Shr

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.274 OF 2001

Date: 15.11.2021.

Shr.