MOHANLAL GUGALIYA Vs. M VINCENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, the Civil Revision Petition itself was taken up for final disposal in view of the fact that the notice to respondent has been dispensed with since he has remained absent and was placed ex-parte before the trial court. Heard the arguments on merits and carefully perused the case records.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed a suit in S. G. No. 7533/1994 before the Court of Small causes Judge, Bangalore against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,300/- due on a commercial transaction. The respondent: held purchased textile goods from the petitioner on credit basis and the petitioner had prepared invoices in duplicate which were signed by the respondent and the originals of which were given to the respondent as per the mercantile practice followed by the 'business community. That the respondent had made certain payments to the petitioner and the petitioner had issued the receipts to the respondent in the very same way as the invoices were prepared. That the respondent though served with the summons in the suit, he had remained absent and was placed ex parte by the trial Court on 27. 6. 1995. That the petitioner had examined himself as PW 1 on 26. 5. 1997 and had sought to mark and exhibit original carbon copies of the Invoices and Receipts. The petitioner had based his suit on the invoices which were raised on the respondent. The trial Court has observed that since the signature of the petitioner and the respondent is in carbon, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Being aggrieved by the said observations in the course of evidence of the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1-989 SC 702 has contended that the learned trial Judge has grossly erred in not noticing that the carbon copies were admissible in evidence and ought to have marked and exhibited the same in evidence. The court below having refused to mark them in evidence has committed an error of jurisdiction.

(3.) IN AIR 1989 SC 703 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is held as under :