RAMESHBHAI LALJIBHAI TADVI Vs. KRISHNAPRASAD P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the original defendant against whom the respondentplaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 32/2006 for recovery of the amount of Rs 1,97,036/ from the defendant.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in his suit is that the plaintiff was serving as Assistant Engineer at Narmada Project Store Division No. IV and the defendant was also serving in the same office as class IV employee. There was good relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff lent different amounts at different times. From June 1998 onwards the plaintiff lent 3,10,000/ to the defendant and the defendant used to repay small amounts against the total amount lent by the plaintiff. From the period of December 1998 and June 1999 the plaintiff repaid only Rs 4515/ but thereafter between January 1999 and November 2000 the plaintiff repaid amount of Rs 99,000/ and thus defendant repaid Rs 1,03,515/. On 6th January 2001 the plaintiff sent the account for the remaining amount due and payable by the defendant by registered post, to which the defendant did not answer and in fact paid Rs 2000/ by cheque on 8th May 2001 and further Rs 2000/ by cheque on 19th June 2001. On 11th August 2001, on 1s September 2001 and lastly on 11th October 2001, similar amounts were paid by the defendant towards the outstanding amount and the defendant thus paid Rs 1,13,515 but did not pay the remaining amount and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice dated 15th December 2001 asking the defendant to repay the remaining amount with interest by 14th January 2001. The defendant gave evasive reply to the notice but did not pay any amount and therefore the suit was filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendant unsuccessfully carried the matter before the Appellate Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 27/2012. The defendant raised various contentions. The main contentions are that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred; that the plaintiff did not produced any documentary evidence, that the amount claimed in the suit was due and payable by the defendant; that the account kept by the plaintiff on simple paper could not be admissible in evidence; that the cheques given by the defendant were not for the repayment of any amount to the plaintiff and that the trial court has misdirected itself while dealing with the counter claim of the defendant by not properly reading the evidence available on record. Learned Appellate Judge however, on appreciation of evidence confirmed the finding and reasoning given by the learned trial judge by coming to the conclusion that if the defendant had repaid some of the amount to the plaintiff and if the defendant had failed to even dispute the account sent by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has not proved that he had lent the amount claimed in the suit to the defendant. Learned Appellate Judge, thus dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 31st August 2012. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge before this Court, in this Appeal.