A NITIN AND COMPANY Vs. JATINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.3.2001 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of balance said to be due on account of share purchase transactions entered into between the parties was dismissed. THE main ground and the only ground on which the trial Court has dismissed the suit is that the appellant/plaintiff failed to file any contract notes to prove that the respondent/defendant had entered into the contract for purchase of shares of M/s. JCT Limited and M/s Orkay Silk Mills and with respect to which transactions the suit was filed.

(2.) IN law a mere oral statement, on being controverted, cannot discharge the onus of proof. IN the present case, in the absence of any documentary evidence of the existence of contract between the parties, for purchase of shares of JCT limited and Orkay Silk Mills, the trial Court has held that the appellant/plaintiff failed to discharge its onus of proof and therefore it could not claim the value of difference of the shares as ordered by the respondent/defendant and the market rate at which those shares were subsequently sold by the appellant/plaintiff. The relevant findings of the trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree are contained in paras 13 to 16 which read as under:-