T K MURUGENDRAPPA Vs. KANTAKA STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant. Respondent-Karnataka State Agro industries Limited filed a suit against the appellant herein for recovery of Rs. 71,355. 95 together with interest at 12% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of recovery and for other reliefs. The said suit was hotly contested by the appellant. Trial Court decreed the suit against the appellant for Rs. 71,355. 95 with Court costs and current interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The said judgment and decree is now under challenge.

(2.) AFTER hearing the matter some time, it is noticed by this Court that certain documents filed by the respondent before the Trial Court were taken back by the respondent and the said documents were not available in the records sent by the Trial Court. Thereafter, Trial Court was directed to send back the entire documents. Trial Court records were secured viz. , Exs. P-6 and 7. Exs. P-6 and 7 are the books of account. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is noticed that in ex. P-7 relevant entry pertaining to the accounts of the appellant was not marked by the respondent-plaintiff. The book is marked as Ex. P-7 but the relevant pages were not marked. Since it is a suit on accounts, as the plaintiff is required to prove each and every entry, respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC to permit him to mark the document. The said application is opposed by the learned Counsel for the appellant. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, relief sought by the respondent in the said application cannot be considered by this Court as the application does not satisfy the ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 (l) (a) and 27 (l) (aa ). Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the application. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in smt. Pramed Kumari Bhatia v Om Prakash Bhatia and Others, wherein it is held as hereunder:

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is noticed by this Court that whether the application filed by respondent 1 is to be considered or not and whether the Appellate Court has got discretion to secure additional evidence from the parties to enable it to pronounce judgment. It is not in dispute that Ex. P-7 was produced by the respondent before the Trial Court and the same was marked. While marking the document, the relevant entries pertaining to the transactions of the appellant was not marked by the respondent. This mistake is not even noticed by the Trial Court. The suit is based on accounts. When a suit is filed for the recovery of the amount based on accounts when the defendant has disputed the correctness of the accounts, plaintiff has to prove each and every entry of his books of account. Trial Court, without noticing that the relevant entries in Ex. P-7 are not marked, has passed the judgment in favour of the respondent by referring to such entries. During the course of arguments, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that when the relevant entries are not marked, the same should not have been looked into or considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, in the circumstances, this Court has to hold that the Trial court has committed an error in considering the relevant entries in Ex. P-7 when such entries are not marked.