handed over to Mr. Srinivasan; (iii) however, Ex.PW1/G mentioned only seven items and there was no mention that systems were handed over to Mr. Srinivasan; (iv) that the appellant/plaintiff had not stepped into the witness box and his attorney only was examined; (v) that the said attorney, during cross-examination admitted that M/s Computers & System Technology was the sole proprietary concern of the appellant/plaintiff and that the attorney did not know with whom the appellant/plaintiff as proprietor of the said firm used to deal for the purposes of the contract; (vi) that the attorney also admitted that he was not working with M/s Computers & System Technology in the relevant year and that he had in fact never worked with M/s Computers System Technology; (vii) that the said attorney also admitted that the agreement, in pursuance to which the money claim was made in the suit, had not taken place in his presence; (viii) that the attorney further admitted that no transaction subject matter of the suit had taken place in his presence; (ix) that the attorney also admitted that he had no authority to deal on behalf of M/s Computers & System Technology in any manner whatsoever; (x) that as per the dicta in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 439 and Man Kaur Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha 2010 X AD SC 304, no credence could be given to the testimony of the said attorney; (xi) that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to prove the case and the judgment of the Suit Court did not require any interference.
