M/S. Andhra Cements Limited vs M/S. Patwari Plastics Private ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3142 Tel

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                     C.C.A.No.12 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

Disputing the validity and the legality of the judgment

that is rendered by the Court of XXV Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.532 of 2011

dated 18.6.2015, this appeal is filed.

2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The appellant is the defendant to the suit. The

respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.12,20,000/- together with costs and interest. The said

suit was decreed in its favour. Aggrieved by the same, the

appellant/defendant is before this Court.

4. For the sake of convenience of discussion, the parties

to the appeal would be referred to in the same

nomenclature as referred to by the trial Court.

5. The case of the plaintiff, as could be perceived

through the contents of the plaint, is that it is the

manufacturer of P.P.Woven sacks having its registered

office at Hyderabad. The defendant used to place orders for Dr.CSL , J

CCCA.No.12 of 2016

supply of P.P.Woven sacks and the plaintiff used to supply

the stock. The defendant was maintaining a running

account with the plaintiff. For the period from April, 2006

to January, 2009, the defendant fell due a sum of

Rs.8,56,650/-. The Ledger extract and the Statement of

account of the defendant that is maintained with the

plaintiff discloses the same. The plaintiff addressed several

letters requesting the defendant to release the amount, but

the defendant neither replied nor paid the amount due.

Hence, the suit.

6. The defendant filed written statement denying its

liability. It contended that last payment that was made by

it was on 31.01.2008, whereas the suit was filed on

15.7.2011, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. The

defendant also disputed the version of the plaintiff

regarding payment of interest. The defendant took a plea

that it never received any notices or letters from the

plaintiff demanding payment. The defendant ultimately

sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. However, considering the evidence of P.W-1 and

Exs.A-1 to A-11, the learned judge of the trial Court came Dr.CSL , J

CCCA.No.12 of 2016

to a conclusion that the suit is well within limitation and

that the defendant is at liability to pay the amount due and

thereby, the suit was decreed.

8. In the light of the aforementioned pleadings of the

parties, the evidence adduced and the findings given by the

trial Court, the points that emerge for consideration in this

appeal are:

(1) Whether the suit is within limitation. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for.

(3) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the appellant, which in turn requires interference of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.

9.Point No.1:-

Making his submission, the learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant contended that the trial Court ought

to have appreciated the fact that the suit is hopelessly

barred by limitation since the date of last payment made by

the defendant to the plaintiff was on 31.01.2008 whereas

the suit was filed on 15.7.2011. The period of limitation for

filing a suit for recovery of money is three years. When the Dr.CSL , J

CCCA.No.12 of 2016

version of the defendant is that the suit is filed beyond the

said period of limitation, the contention of the plaintiff is

that the suit is well within the period of limitation. Stating

his version in this regard, the learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff contended before this Court that the

defendant used to place orders till 31.10.2008 and Ex.A-4-

Ledger extract reveals the same and therefore, the suit is

well within limitation.

10. In reply to the said submission, the learned counsel

for the respondent/defendant states that Ex.A-4 ledger

extract is self-attested document that is made by the

plaintiff and the plaintiff has not filed any other documents

in support of its claim and even Ex.A-3-Statement of

Account reveals that after 31.5.2008, no payment was

made by the defendant to the plaintiff and further, there is

no acknowledgment of debt by the defendant and hence,

the suit is barred by limitation.

11. Ex.A-4-Ledger extract reveals that there were

transactions till 31.10.2008. Ex.A-3-Statement of Account

also discloses the same fact. Admittedly, the plaint was

presented on 15.7.2011. Therefore, it cannot be held that Dr.CSL , J

CCCA.No.12 of 2016

the suit is barred by limitation. Same is the view expressed

by the trial Court and this Court, basing on the documents

that are referred to supra, also holds that the suit is within

limitation.

12.Point No.2:-

Contending that the defendant is due a sum of

Rs.12,20,000/- and it is liable to pay the same along with

interest, the plaintiff examined P.W-1 on its side and

further, produced relevant documents including Ex.A-3-

Statement of Account and Ex.A-4-Ledger Extract. The plea

taken by the defendant is that it had paid the entire

amount and that no amount is due. The said fact has to be

established by the defendant. But, the defendant neither

produced any oral evidence nor documentary evidence in

proof of the said fact.

13. On the other hand, by the evidence produced, the

plaintiff has established before the trial Court that for the

goods supplied by it, the defendant became liable to pay a

sum of Rs.8,56,650/-. Thus, considering the evidence that

is produced by the plaintiff and as the defendant failed to

satisfy the Court that there was valid discharge of the Dr.CSL , J

CCCA.No.12 of 2016

amount due, the trial Court decided the case in favour of

the plaintiff and directed the defendant to pay the amount

due. Further, though the defendant contended that it is not

entitled to pay interest, the transaction is commercial in

nature. Further, no evidence is produced to show that

there was an agreement between the parties that even

though the amount that fell due remains unpaid by the

defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest over

the said amount. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held

that the defendant is at liability to pay the amount due

together with interest. Concurring with the findings of the

trial Court, this Court holds that the defendant is at

liability to pay the said amount.

14. Point No.3:-

When the judgment of the trial Court is gone through,

this Court finds that the learned judge of the trial Court

has discussed about the merits of the case and decided the

issues in a fair manner. None of the observations made by

the trial Court regarding merits of the case needs

interference by this Court. The learned judge of the trial

Court has discussed each and every aspect of the case and Dr.CSL , J

CCCA.No.12 of 2016

came to a just conclusion. Therefore, this Court holds that

the judgment of the trial Court is valid in all aspects.

15. Resultantly, the Appeal is dismissed without costs,

confirming the judgment that is rendered by the Court of

XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in

O.S.No.532 of 2011 dated 18.6.2015. Interim order granted

by this Court on 27.01.2016 stands vacated.

16. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 29.6.2022 dr