SERITEC ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMPUTER PERIPHERAL SOLUTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG> VALMIKI J.MEHTA,J</DJG>This Regular Second Appeal has been filed impugning the judgments of the courts below by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of money for computer goods supplied has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff had supplied goods to the respondent/defendant. This aspect is not disputed by either of the parties. It is also not disputed that respondent/defendant paid some amounts but an amount of Rs.1,99,355/ - was due as balance. Whereas the case of the appellant was that this amount was not paid, the case of the respondent was that this amount was paid and the receipt in cash was signed by one employee, namely Sh. Arun, of the plaintiff/company, and which receipt was exhibited as Ex.DW1/E by the respondent/defendant. On behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, Sh. Arun in his deposition denied his signatures on the document Ex.DW1/E. Trial Court on its own compared the signatures and found that admitted signatures of Sh. Arun appearing on the record were different than the signatures of Sh. Arun which were alleged to exist in the receipt/document Ex.DW1/E.

(3.) I may note that the issue no.3 which was framed by the trial court was with respect to defence of the respondent/defendant as to whether the respondent/defendant has made the payment as claimed by him. This issue was held in favour of the appellant/plaintiff both by the trial court as also by the first appellate court. The first appellate court in fact dismissed the cross -objections of the respondent/defendant with respect to challenge laid to findings on issue no.3. No further appeal to this Court has been filed by the respondent/defendant on issue no.3, however I do not think any appeal was required by the respondent/defendant only with respect to finding on one issue and the respondent/defendant can always urge this aspect in the present appeal in view of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC.