PAVAN CEMENTS AND HARDWARE SUPPLIER, HASSAN DISTRICT Vs. MANAGER, KARNATAKA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant was the plaintiff before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Belur, (for brevity referred to as the ' Trial Court- ), in O.S.No.82/2002, which he had filed against the present respondents for recovery of money amounting to Rs. 49,877.25 with interest there upon at the rate of 12% p.a.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial court was that, the plaintiff-concern, was doing business in Cement and Hardware materials at Belur, Hassan District. The defendants had taken barbed wire (fencing wire) from it in a quantity of 1515 Kgs worth Rs. 44692.50 calculated at the rate of Rs. 29.50 per Kg. Even after the supply of the barbed wire to the second defendant on credit basis, payment was not made to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff wrote several letters and sent legal notices to the defendants claiming for payment of the pending bill, despite which the defendants failed to make good the payments, which constrained the plaintiff to institute a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 49,877.25 with interest thereupon. 2-A. In response to the suit summons served upon them, the first defendant appeared through its counsel and the second and third defendants were represented by the Assistant Government Pleader. The first defendant filed its written statement. The first defendant in its written statement denied the supply of barbed wire as contended by the plaintiff. It is stated that the true picture of the case of the plaintiff were not revealed by the plaintiff. However, it is stated that on the indent from the second defendant, it procured the barbed wire fence weighing 1515 kgs from the plaintiff and supplied it to the second defendant on credit basis, which was also acknowledged by the second defendant. The first defendant requested the second defendant on several times to make good the payment for supply of barbed wire. In spite of such repeated requests, demands and personal contacts, the second defendant did not make good the payment. In that regard, the first defendant was also constrained to write a letter to the Principal, Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru. With this the first defendant stated that, it is only the second defendant who is liable and bound to pay the suit claim, but not the first defendant. The second defendant in its written statement contended that the suit was not maintainable, since no notice as required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been issued. It denied all the plaint averments that the plaintiff had supplied any barbed wire to it, much less as contended by it in its plaint. It denied that any transaction as averred in the plaint had ever taken place. The written statement filed by the second defendant was adopted on behalf of the third defendant.

(3.) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: