S. KRISHNAPRASAD Vs. UDAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST defendant in O.S. No.3 of 2005 of the court of learned Second Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of learned First Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S. No.119 of 2010 reversing dismissal of the suit and granting a decree in favour of the 1st respondent -plaintiff. First respondent is a dealer of electrical goods, home appliances, etc., and claimed that the appellant and 2nd respondent -2nd defendant purchased goods from him from 01.07.2002 to 27.08.2002 on credit basis for a total sum of Rs.1,73,564.62, the purchase was and for and on behalf of the appellant who paid Rs.1,01,960/ - as per cheque. The 1st respondent sued the appellant and 2nd respondent for the balance amount of Rs.71,604.62.

(2.) APPELLANT contended that he has no privity of contract with the 1st respondent and that he had appointed M/s.Keerthi and Bhavana for reconstruction of the hotel building belonging to him. The 2nd respondent was working under the said contractor. The purchases were made by the 2nd respondent with which appellant has no connection.

(3.) MAIN argument the learned counsel for appellant has advanced is that there is no evidence to show that there is privity of contract between the appellant and the first respondent. It is pointed out that Exts.A2 to A20, vouchers and credit bills produced by the 1st respondent do not even mention name of the appellant, not to say that it did not carry signature of the appellant. It is further contended that the appellant had specifically pleaded that Ext.A21, statement prepared by the 1st respondent in the name of appellant is a fabricated piece of evidence. The learned Additional District Judge has referred to a portion of the evidence of appellant as D.W.1 (which is extracted in the judgment) and concluded that the purchases were for and on behalf of the appellant. It is contended that evidence of P.Ws2 and 3 ought not have been accepted.