The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that initial onus to prove genuineness of the document relied on is on the plaintiff and then the defendent has to discredit it to deprive the former of relief.
The single-judge bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas was deciding a first appeal under Section 96 CPC filed by defendant-State and its functionaries assailing the judgment and decree of the District Court directing it pay Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 6% from 28.01.2004 till actual payment is made to plaintiff.
Brief Facts of the Case
The plaintiff had filed a civil suit primarily contending that it is a registered partnership firm and engaged in the business of supply of stationary and sports items. Plaintiff Rakesh Gupta is the partner of the firm. As per plaint averments the plaintiff had supplied goods worth of Rs. 61,464/- to defendants. The defendants to satisfy the bill amount has given two cheques dated 14.07.2002 for Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- which subsequently went dishonoured. Pursuant to it, the plaintiff sent legal notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendant through his counsel on 08.05.2001 for releasing the payment but they did not release the payment. It has been further contended that in pursuance of the notice defendant No. 2 has forwarded memo mentioning the amount payable by them to defendant No.1 still the amount has not been paid, therefore, he has filed civil suit and prayed that decree be granted directing the defendants to pay Rs. 60,000/- along with 6% interest.
In the written statement filed, defendant had denied the allegation and contrarily averred that the plaintiff has not supplied the material as mentioned in the plaint and order for the same had also never been issued from its side. It therefore conteded that the issue of dishonour of cheque raised by the plaintiff is mendacious. To support the case, the defendant asked for the production of Stock Ledger of 2000.
The plaintiff upon examination of his partner and series of the documents relied on filed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC reiterating the plaint averment saying that he has supplied the material to the Block Development Officer Farasgaon valued at Rs. 61,464/-.
In the cross-examination, however, he has admitted that no order has been issued in his favour for supply of material. It was stated that as per document (Ex.P-4) he was directed to supply material, which was supplied by him and additional to that order supply was demanded which he has provided and receipt has been obtained. He has also stated that he has no knowledge whether the material supplied to the defendants has been mentioned in the stock register or not. He also mentioned before the Court abourt his action of filing of complaint before the Magistrate under Section 138 of the NI Act.
As per office of Block Education Officer there is no mention about payment to plaintiff in cash or through cheque, if any material is received in the office then it has to be mentioned in the stock register. He has further stated that plaintiff has not given any bill to Block Education Officer, Farasgaon and purchase order has not been issued by the office. The witness was cross examined and in the cross examination he has denied that any order was given to the plaintiff. He has also denied that cheque (Ex.P-5) has been issued from the office.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse, contrary to the record as the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has supplied the material to the defendants.
High Court's Analysis
The Court at the outset after clarifying the legal position of onus being on the plaintiff to prove credibility of document produced, noted that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the work order was issued in his favour and couldn't establish the genuineness of the challan.
"It is well settled legal position, that the genuineness of the document has to be proved by the plaintiff who relies upon the document and thereafter it is for the defendants to dislodge the credibility of the document as fake, sham and bogus document."
Stating that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to examine the witnesses who has delivered the goods and thereafter the concerning officer has put his signature on the challan, the Court observed that no witnesses was examined by the plaintiff in his support.
"From bare perusal of receipt from Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28, it is clear that the plaintiff has not put signature of any employee of concerned department who has received the material and even no cross-examination was done with regard to supply of material through Ex P-8 to Ex.P-28. Even from examining the evidence of the plaintiff it is not clear to whom the plaintiff has supplied the material and who has signed the receipt. Similarly, in the crossexamination, the witness has admitted that as per Ex.P-4 he has supplied the material thereafter additional supply order was given to him but he has not filed any document to show that the supply order is made to him. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that no specific order for supply of material valued at Rs. 61,464/- has been given to him."
Remarking that it is a popular practice in Govt Departments that supply order is always made in writing, the Court stressed that no work order has been placed by the plaintiff before the trial Court.
"Learned trial Court has heavily relied upon the challan from Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28 but from the challan it is not established that material was supplied and received by the department. It is pertinent to mention here that in the challan “BEO Pharasagaon” has been mentioned and one signature is there but whether this signature was put by the respective officer of the department or not, it is not established, therefore, it cannot held that material was supplied by him."
In view of the above, the Court reuled that since plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden therefore, burden cannot shift to the defendant to prove their case. It also noted that impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is against in violation of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
The Court mentioned Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, 2006 Latest Caselaw 269 SC
"It is well settled legal position is that initial onus is always upon the plaintiff to prove the fact and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, then onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. In this case nothing has been discharged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not proved by adducing cogent evidence on record that he has supplied the material and thereafter payment was not made"
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh vs M/s. Hindustan Supply Agency
Case Details: FA No. 120 of 2007
Coram: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
