GOPAL GOWDA Vs. MANJUNATH D. PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed by the present respondent as a plaintiff in the Court of the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court") in O.S.No.321/2007 against the present appellant arraigning him as a defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,75,106.00 with future interest at the rate of Rs.12.00% per annum on the suit claim amount from the date of suit till complete realisation from the defendant, came to be partly decreed by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dtd. 16/12/2013, wherein the Trial Court held that, the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,31,724.00 with future interest at the rate of Rs.12.00% per annum from the date of suit till complete realisation from the defendant. It is against the said judgment and decree the defendant in the Trial Court has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, plaintiff is a proprietary concern having engaged in the business of printing and publishing. The defendant had approached it for printing and supply of various promotional items. As per the request of the defendant, the plaintiff had supplied printing promotional items which were delivered under five different invoices, the value of which in total amounted to Rs.2,26,524.00. Out of that amount, the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.84,800.00 as per the account maintained by the plaintiff. The defendant was still found due of a sum of Rs.1,41,724.00. Towards payment of the said amount, the defendant had in total issued ten cheques, among which, four cheques were dishonoured when presented for realisation and the remaining six cheques were not presented for realisation. A legal notice was sent to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount. However, it invoked no response. The plaintiff also instituted an action under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "N.I. Act"). Since the defendant had not chosen to repay the due, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit.

(3.) In response to the suit summons served upon him, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his Written Statement, wherein he denied all the plaint averments including the alleged transaction between the parties. He also denied that the suit was barred by limitation and that the invoices raised were all false. He denied the alleged liability towards the plaintiff in any sum.