VIJAYLAKSHMI TRACTORS Vs. MAHADEV SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012, by which, the First Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.9-B of 2009, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 21% with a total amount of Rs. 6,33,000/- and also interest till the date of recovery on the pleading, inter alia, that the plaintiff carries on the business of sale and purchase of tractor under the trade name Vijaylakshmi Tractors. The plaintiff is a partnership firm, of which, Bajrang Agrawal and Mohan Agrawal are partners. It was pleaded that a tractor and a trolley, total value of Rs. 4,30,000/- was purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff on 106.2006 on cash payment of Rs. 40,000/- on the date of purchase and Rs. 3,90,000/- remained balance payment to be made. Further case of the plaintiff was that an agreement was entered into between the parties under which the defendant agreed to pay balance amount Rs. 3,90,000/- within two months by arranging finance from the Bank. It was further pleaded that the defendant also agreed that in case, defendant fails to pay the balance amount within two months, he will be liable to pay interest @ 21% and will make full payment on or before 2nd of June, 2007. It was also pleaded that the defendant signed invoice issued on 106.06 and also executed an agreement on stamp paper on 106.06 as also an affidavit in support of the agreement. The defendant, however, did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- which was payable to the plaintiff. Despite notices given to the defendant when the balance amount was not paid, the plaintiff had to file a suit.

(3.) The defence taken by the defendant was that the defendant had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,33,000/- and no amount remained balance to be paid to the plaintiff. Defendant's case was that the agreement between the parties was that the defendant would pay the entire amount of sale consideration and when, later on, defendant would be getting loan financed from the Bank, the amount shall be returned to the defendant. It was further pleaded that the defendant denied having executed any agreement and stated that his signatures were, at the time of sale and purchase of the vehicle, obtained on various blank papers including a blank stamp paper which have now been used by the plaintiff, though, there did not exist any such agreement.