Dismissed

Rodi Lal Nagda v. Kanhaiya Lal

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2021CMA/504/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a commercial court judgment upholding the dismissal of a suit for recovery of money. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the debt as bills lacked signatures and the ledger was not regularly maintained.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it was found to have no substance based on the plaintiff's failure to prove the debt.

Rodi Lal Nagda Vs Kanhaiya Lal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 504/2020

¶3

Rodi Lal Nagda S/o Shri Chunni Lal Nagda, Aged About 64 Years, Proprietor Firm Rodilal Chunnilal Nagda, Near Hanuman Ji Mandir, Dhan Mandi, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Babu Lal Dhabai, R/o Chilalwas, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari. For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

Judgment

¶11

15/01/2021

¶12

This appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Section 96 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 08.11.2019 passed by Commercial Court, Udaipur, whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,17,286/-, has been dismissed.

¶13

The suit was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, with the submissions that the plaintiff-firm was a proprietorship concern and was involved in business of sale of cattle feed; the defendant was dealing with the plaintiff-firm since 2012, he always purchased the goods on credit, for which, bills were issued and the same were entered into the account in defendant’s name in the ledger maintained by the plaintiff, which contains all the details pertaining to purchases made by the defendant and the amount

¶14

(2 of 7)

¶15

[CMA-504/2020]

¶16

paid. It was claimed that the defendant made last purchase on 29.06.2015 and also paid Rs.30,000/- towards the previous outstandings and on the said date, a sum of Rs.3,67,286/- was outstanding. Despite repeated reminders, the outstandings were not paid and the defendant stopped purchasing goods and visiting the plaintiff-firm.

¶17

A notice dated 26.05.2017 was sent, which was refused. It was further reiterated in the suit that the account of the defendant was being maintained in the ledger, which shows outstanding of Rs.3,67,286/- and in terms of the indications made in the bills, for the delayed payment, the plaintiff was entitled to interest @ 2% and, therefore, from 29.06.2015 till the date of issuing notice, the amount of interest comes to Rs. 1,50,000/-, as such a total sum of Rs. 5,17,286/- has been outstanding.

¶18

Based on the above submissions, it was prayed that the decree for a sum of Rs. 5,17,286/- be granted alongwith contractual interest.

¶19

After service, written statement was filed by the defendant denying the averments contained in the plaint. It was contended that no goods were purchased on credit and all the goods were purchased in cash.

¶20

Further submissions were made that all the bills have been paid and no amount is outstanding. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

¶21

The commercial court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, Proprietor-Rodi Lal Nagda was examined as PW-1 and he exhibited 34 documents. On behalf of the defendant, sole

¶22

(3 of 7)

¶23

[CMA-504/2020]

¶24

defendant-Kanhaiya Lal was examined, however, he did not produce any documentary evidence.

¶25

After hearing the parties, the commercial court came to the conclusion that the suit was based on the bills (Exhibits- 6 to 34) and the ledger (Exhibit-4), Exhibits-6 to 34 i.e. the bills did not contain any signatures of the person, who had prepared the bill, proprietor of the firm or the plaintiff, except for four bills, none of the bills contained, signatures of the defendant or his representative. The court also noticed that the fact that the amount being outstanding against the defendant, the said aspect was not reflected in the returns filed with the Income-tax Department despite the plaintiff being an income-tax payer, the ledger account produced was found suspicious and as the petty cash book, cash book and various vouchers, which formed the basis for the entries in the ledger were not produced, the entries were found to be unreliable.

¶26

The commercial court also noticed the contradictions in the statement of the plaintiff regarding the entries made in the ledger and found that the ledger (Exhibit-4) was nothing more than a waste paper and, consequently, decided the issue No.1 against the plaintiff.

¶27

The issue No.2 pertaining to lack of cause of action was decided against the defendant and in view of its finding on issue No.1, the suit was dismissed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the commercial court was not justified in dismissing the suit based on the findings recorded by it.

¶29

(4 of 7)

¶30

[CMA-504/2020]

¶31

Submissions were made that there were contradictions in the pleadings and proof on part of the defendant, inasmuch as, while in the written statement, it was denied that any goods were purchased on credit, in the affidavit in relation to admission-denial of the documents, he indicated that if the goods were purchased on credit, the payment was made in a day or two and in the affidavit in evidence again reiterated that no goods were purchased on credit, which clearly indicates his vacillating stand.

¶32

Further submissions were made that no material was produced by the defendant to prove his case that he had purchased the goods in cash though he claimed that the bills of having purchase the goods in cash were available with him.

¶33

It was emphasized that as the plaintiff had produced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his claim regarding the outstanding, the commercial court despite lack of any documentary evidence on part of the defendant, was not justified in dismissing the suit and, therefore, the findings on issue No.1 being vitiated, the judgment impugned requires interference by this Court.

¶34

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record as summoned from the commercial court.

¶35

A perusal of the suit, written statement and the evidence produced, clearly brings out that the entire suit is based on the documents (Exhibits-6 to 34) which are bills pertaining to the sales made by the plaintiff and Exhibit-4, the ledger account, which besides reflecting the sales made indicates the amount

¶36

(5 of 7) [CMA-504/2020]

¶37

received and at the end indicates the outstanding of Rs.3,67,286/as on 29.06.2015.

¶38

Section 34 of the Evidence Act deals with the relevance of

¶39

entries in books of account, which reads as under:-

¶40

“34. Entries in books of account when relevant. – Entries in books of account, including those maintained in an electronic from, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability.”

¶41

A perusal of the above provision reveals that entries in books of account, which have been regularly kept in the course of business are relevant, but such statements alone are not sufficient to charge any person with liability.

¶42

A perusal of the ledger account (Exhibit-4) produced by the plaintiff, indicates that the same only contains the dates and the amounts under the debit, credit and balance columns i.e. the same does not contain anything in the ‘particular’ column. There is no reference to the bill nos. or the nature of amount received.

¶43

A close scrutiny of the said ledger account, also reveals that the same apparently contains dates in wholly haphazard manner, inasmuch as, the date 16.04.2013 is followed by 16.03.2013, 06.05.2013 is followed by 16.04.2013, 30.09.2013 is followed by 28.09.2013, 12.02.2015 is followed by 25.12.2014, 15.03.2015 is followed by 26.02.2015 and 14.04.2015 is followed by 05.04.2015, such ledger, which as noticed hereinbefore does not contain any particular, clearly give rise to suspicion. In any case it cannot be said that the same was kept regularly in course of business.

¶44

(6 of 7) [CMA-504/2020]

¶45

Further while the plaintiff clearly indicated in his crossexamination that the bills as produced do not contain the indication that the sale was on credit and that the cash received is recorded in the cash book. However, in support of the entries made in the ledger, the cash book was not produced.

¶46

Besides the above, the claim was made that the Exhibit-4, the ledger was prepared by plaintiff’s Accountant ( Munim ) and by plaintiff himself, indicated name of his Munim as Shilpa Madam, however, indicated that he cannot say that which entries were made by him in Exhibit-4 and which were made by Shilpa Madam, then on his own indicated that on all the pages of Exhibit-4, the entries were in his hand and went on to indicate that his Chartered Accountant is Shilpa Madam.

¶47

The said statement also indicates the fact that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the entries made in the ledger even orally by taking vacillating stand about its author and claimed Shilpa Madam as Munim as well as Chartered Accountant in the same breath, which also reflects that the entries made in Exhibit-4, were not supported by any material so as to prove the outstanding as contained therein.

¶48

Qua the bills (Exhibits-6 to 34) also, the plaintiff claimed that he was maintaining separate bill books for goods sold on credit and goods sold for cash, however, as to whether the said bills pertained to credit sales was not indicated on the bills, which further puts the material produced in support of the ledger account in jeopardy.

¶49

The commercial court has besides the above aspect, also rightly come to the conclusion that except for the four bills, which

¶50

(7 of 7) [CMA-504/2020]

¶51

contains signatures of the defendant, none of the other bills contain any signatures either of the plaintiff or of the defendant, which does not prove the fact of sale of goods on credit to the defendant.

¶52

So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant in relation to the so called contradictions in the pleading and the statement made by the defendant pertaining to the fact of purchase of goods on credit and the fact that he did not produce any material in support of his contention of having purchased the goods for cash only is concerned, the minor contradictions pointed out by the counsel, that also only in the affidavit pertaining to admission-denial of the documents cannot by itself prove the case of the plaintiff, which he has miserably failed to substantiate for lack of any material and mainly relying on a self-serving ledger account (Exhibit-4).

¶53

Even otherwise, it is well settled that a plaintiff is required to stand on his own legs and cannot rely on the lack of and/or weakness of the defendant.

¶54

In view thereof, the finding recorded by the commercial court on issue No.1, cannot be faulted.

¶55

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

¶56

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 9-PKS/-

¶57

(SANGEET LODHA),J

Rodi Lal Nagda v. Kanhaiya Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rodi Lal Nagda v. Kanhaiya Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.C. Garg Vs Union of India

Ghisa Ram Contractor Vs Union of India

Smt.Chanda Vs Dy.Commissioner Central Excise

The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur Vs Harish Gaurav

Rathi Steel and Power Limited Vs Shri Ram Lime Products Pvt. Ltd.

State of Rajasthan-State Vs M/S. Gopalram Gumaniram Chaudhary