KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDALI Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises from the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.317 of 2000 so far it relates to not allowing the claim of Rs.22,87,445.51.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the appellant ? original plaintiff was engaged in the work of crushing of sugar cane and as there was technical problem in the machinery of original plaintiff Society, the said work was carried out by respondent No.2 ? original defendant No.2. THE price fixed per MT was Rs.885/- and as per the original plaintiff, the total quantity of the sugar sent for pressing was 16991.740 MT. THE amount as agreed was also in part tendered by cheque, but those cheques were dishonoured. THE suit was filed for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,26,08,644/- comprising of the amount of Rs.62,48,874.44 towards the sugar cane, which was sent for crushing, Rs.29,05,726.56 being interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 18% per annum, Rs.22,87,445.51 towards the cutting of sugar cane and transportation of sugar cane and Rs.11,66,597.49 being interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 18% per annum. It appears that the trial Court, after considering the evidence, found that the plaintiff has been able to prove the case for recovery of the amount of Rs.62,55,994.87 and on the aspects of interest, the Court found it proper to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum. However, so far the other claims are concerned and more particularly the claims of charges for cutting and transportation of sugar cane being Rs.22,87,445.51, the trial Court found that such claim is not proved, hence, partly decreed the suit. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 2. We have heard Mr.Vakharia, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr.Keyur Vyas, learned Counsel appearing upon advance copy for respondent No.2. We have considered the relevant evidence, which was part of the record of the suit and relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent No.2.

(3.) MR.Vakharia, learned Counsel attempted to contend that it was for the respondent No.2 herein ? original defendant No.2 to show that such amount was paid for cutting and transportation of sugar cane to the other Society or to any other person and in absence of the evidence led on behalf of respondent No.2, the learned Judge could not have disallowed the claim of the appellant ? original plaintiff.