ASHWIN RAJESH AND CO Vs. SARAVANA FABRICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub Court, Erode in O.S. No. 256 of 1986 wherein decree has been passed for Rs. 35,745.10.

(2.) THE plaint allegations in brief are as follows:- THE plaintiff viz., Sri Saravana Fabrics by its proprietor Manoharan is doing business in manufacture of textiles at Erode. THE defendant viz., Ashwin Rajesh and Company by its proprietrix Smt. Radha Vanvaria is also doing business in textiles and exports at Madras. THE defendant placed order with the plaintiff for supply of some specified textile goods on 6.2.1986. THE said order was placed and agreed between the parties at Erode. THE goods were agreed to be supplied on or before 19.3.1986. As per the understanding, the plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant on various dates. But, the defendant has taken a stand as if the goods were not supplied within the agreed date viz., 9.3.1986, but, in fact, the agreed date was only 19.3.1986 and the order was also placed and agreed only at Erode. Inspite of demand made orally and through letters and notice through the counsel, the defendant has sent a reply with false allegations and thereby the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE specific evidence of the plaintiff as PW1 is to the effect that the order was made and agreed between the parties only at Erode and the original of the said order has been marked as Ex. A1 and the alleged copy of Ex. A1 is marked as Ex. B3 on the side of the defendant. On perusal of Ex. A1, it is clear that the same has been prepared on 6.2.1986 and the ultimate delivery date has been fixed as 19.3.1986 and the plaintiff himself has put his signature for the plaintiff viz., Sri Saravana Fabrics and one Sheela has put her signature for the defendant company. At the same time, Ex. A1 says 19.3.1986 as the delivery date whereas Ex. B3 says it as 9.3.1986. THE discrepancy of the said date is attempted to be explained by the defendant through DW1 as if the plaintiff has altered "9" into "19". On the other hand, the explanation of the plaintiff is to the effect that there is no material alteration; the time agreed was only up to 19.3.1986; the explanation of the defendant is not true and it is only mad e for the purpose of defence.