VINOD GUPTA Vs. SH. PARMOD MANCHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is on the 'Regular Board' of this Court since 3.1.2011. Today, this matter is effective item No. 11 on the 'Regular Board'. It is 3.15 P.M. and no one has chosen to appear for the parties. I have therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) THE challenge by means of this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.8.2001 whereby the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff for recovery of the balance advance of Rs. 1 lac was decreed with interest at 12% per annum.

(3.) THE trial court by the impugned judgment and decree has held that the Appellant failed to prove that the goods were supplied to the Respondent/Plaintiff. The trial court has said that if there was no alleged settlement as claimed by the Appellant/Defendant that there were defective goods worth Rs. 1,25,000/ - and the balance goods were O.K, which were used by the Respondent/Plaintiff because if that was so, then there would surely have been some sort of writing / document to that effect. The trial court has concluded that merely on the basis of an oral statement, the Appellant/Defendant cannot be said to have discharged onus of proof.