Adilabad District Cooperative ... vs M/S. G. Bhoomareddy And Company, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3562 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                APPEAL SUIT Nos.659 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree

dated 07.08.2009 in O.S.No.82 of 2004 passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

2. M/s.G.Bhoomareddy and Company represented by its

Managing partner G.Bhooma Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of

2004 against Adilabad District Co-operative Marketing Society,

represented by Business Manager, Adilabad for recovery of an

amount of Rs.6,57,644/-. The trial Court examined P.W.1 on

behalf of the plaintiff and marked Exs.A1 to A11 on its behalf

and D.Ws.1 & 2 were examined on behalf of the defendant. The

trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, decreed the suit with costs for an amount of

Rs.4,92,372/- with future interest @ 6% per annum from the

date of suit till realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment,

defendant therein preferred the present appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant mainly

contended that respondent/plaintiff settled the amount with the

appellant and found due of Rs.4,92,372/- and after the said

settlement, respondent/plaintiff lifted back fertilizers worth

Rs.1,63,498/- on 21.04.2001 and an amount of Rs.50,000/-

was also paid to the respondent/plaintiff on 25.01.2001 and the

appellant will be due an amount of Rs.2,78,874/- and thus the

claim of the respondent that appellant is due an amount of

Rs.4,92,372/- is false and they also stated that suit was barred

by limitation. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the

Judgment of the trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff

was dealing business in Fertilizer, Pesticides and Seeds and

appellant/defendant was also dealing with the business of

fertilizers in Adilabad district. The appellant/defendant had

purchased fertilizers from respondent/plaintiff Company and

sold to farmers and other agencies. The respondent/plaintiff has

supplied fertilizers to the appellant/defendant on credit as per

the Order. Later, appellant/defendant defaulted in making

payments, as such respondent/plaintiff settled the account and

lifted back remaining material from the appellant/defendant of

various deposits worth Rs.1,63,498/- from 21.04.2001 to

24.04.2001. The appellant/defendant was due an amount of

Rs.5,42,372/- and he assured to pay the remaining balance

immediately, but paid only Rs.50,000/- on 25.06.2001 and

failed to pay the balance of Rs.4,92,372/- in spite of repeated

demands, as such respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery

of the said amount. Whereas, appellant/defendant stated that

respondent/plaintiff settled the account and found due of

Rs.4,92,372/-. After the settlement, respondent/plaintiff lifted

back fertilizers worth Rs.1,63,498/- on 21.04.2001 and an

amount of Rs.50,000/- was also paid by them on 25.01.2001

and thus there was only due of Rs.2,78,874/- and they were not

liable to pay interest @12% as claimed by the

respondent/plaintiff. They also stated that there was no cause

of action for the plaint and no jurisdiction to entertain the suit

and respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit, as he

was not authorized.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant herein contended

that payments were due from 21.04.2001 to 24.04.2001 and the

suit was filed after three years two months i.e., on 30.06.2004,

as such suit was barred by limitation, but the perusal of the

record shows that plaint was filed on 23.04.2004 and thus it is

well within the limitation. In the written statement filed by the

appellant/defendant, they admitted regarding due of

Rs.2,78,874/- and stated that they were not liable to pay

interest and further requested to grant time for payment of

amount in installments @ Rs.3,000/- per month.

6. The trial Court observed that D.W.1 was examined

in-chief on behalf of the defendant, but he did not appear before

the Court for Cross-examination, as such his evidence in-chief

was eschewed on 02.06.2009. The trial Court also examined

D.W.2 on behalf of the appellant/defendant. He stated that after

the settlement, appellant/defendant was due an amount of

Rs.4,92,372/- to the respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter,

respondent/plaintiff lifted back the remaining stock of fertilizers

worth Rs.1,63,498/- on 21.04.2001 and on 25.01.2001 they

paid Rs.50,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff and thus the

amount due by the appellant/defendant was only

Rs.2,78,874/-, but in the Cross-examination, he stated that he

did not file any document to show that respondent/plaintiff

agreed to receive Rs.2,78,874/- and he also stated that he did

not know about the settlement arrived at between the

respondent/plaintiff and appellant/defendant. The trial Court

observed that as D.W.2 could not file any document regarding

the settlement arrived at for Rs.2,78,874/-, appellant/defendant

has to pay due amount of Rs.4,92,372/- to the

respondent/plaintiff as on 25.06.2001 and decreed the suit for

the said amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

suit till realization. The respondent/plaintiff in his evidence

stated that after getting back the stock worth of Rs.1,63,498/-,

the balance due by the appellant/defendant was Rs.5,42,372/-

and after deducting Rs.50,000/- that was paid on 25.06.2001,

the amount due by the appellant/defendant was Rs.4,92,372/-

and the said amount was admitted by the appellant/defendant,

but stated that later he withdrawn the stock worth

Rs.1,63,498/- and also paid Rs.50,000/-, as such there was

only due of Rs.2,78,874/-, but D.W.2 did not file any document

to substantiate his version, as such this Court finds that there

is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court.

7. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the

Judgment and decree dated 07.08.2009 in O.S.No.82 of 2004

passed by the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATE: 03.11.2023 tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No.659 of 2009

DATE: 03.11.2023

TRI