SHRI SANJEEV VERMA Vs. SHRI UMESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of either Rs. 22.5 lacs with interest or in the alternative for 5 kgs of gold which was delivered to the defendant for making of jewellery for the plaintiff. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff on 18.9.1997 vide challan Ex. P1/numbered 399 delivered 5 kgs of gold to the defendant for making of jewellery items. The defendant was to get paid labour charges and was to return the jewellery within one month. Since the defendant failed to return the jewellery, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 8.9.1998/Ex. P2 upon the defendant who replied to the same vide Ex. P3 dated 15.9.1998 admitting to the receipt of the gold of 5 kgs but stated that gold was converted to jewellery which was returned to the plaintiff vide voucher No. 023 dated 30.9.1997. In reply, it was alleged that false allegations were made against the defendant to avoid payment of the labour charges of Rs. 79,875/ -. Since the defendant failed to return the gold as claimed by the plaintiff, the subject suit came to be filed.

(2.) DEFENDANT initially appeared and filed his written statement. In the written statement, the defence was that the gold which was received by the defendant was returned back to the plaintiff in the form of jewellery vide voucher No. 023 dated 30.9.1997. The defendant also pleaded lack of locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit as M/s. J.V. Jewels was stated to be a partnership firm and not a sole proprietorship of the plaintiff Sh. Sanjeev Verma. The defendant also pleaded that he was not liable inasmuch as the liability of the defendant was taken over by a company -M/s. Balaji Jewellers Ltd. The written statement again reiterates the contents of the reply Ex. P3 that the plaintiff has filed a false claim to avoid the making of payment of labour charges of Rs. 79,875/ -.

(3.) Plaintiff has stepped into the witness box and proved his case by filing his affidavit by way of evidence. Plaintiff has proved on record the receipt of giving of gold of 5 kgs as Ex. P1, the legal notice as Ex. P2 and the reply of the defendant as Ex. P3. Plaintiff was cross -examined on behalf of the defendant by his Advocate on 2.1.2012 and in which cross -examination the plaintiff has reiterated that M/s. J.V. Jewels is a sole proprietorship concern of the plaintiff and that the defendant failed to deliver the jewellery after having received gold of 5 kgs. It is further stated in the cross -examination that the issue of payment of labour charges never arose inasmuch as the plaintiff was not given back the jewellery which was to be made from 5 kgs of gold which was supplied to the defendant.