GURU SWARUP BHASIN Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Indrasen Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Krishna Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent who has appeared through caveat.

(2.) This is defendant's Second Appeal arising out of Original Suit No.1072 of 2004 which was dismissed by Civil Judge/Additional JSCC, Agra on 2.11.2010. The suit had been filed for recovery of Rs.1 lac. Against the decree of the Trial Court plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No.227 of 2010 which was allowed by District Judge, Agra on 10.11.2011 and suit for recovery of Rs.1 lac alongwith 18% interest from the payment date of the loan till the date of filing of the suit was decreed. Interest thereafter at the rate of 9% per year was also awarded. Both the parties deal in the business of shoes i.e. selling the commodities required for shoe making, getting the shoes made and selling the same. The case of the plaintiff was that on 25.10.2001 plaintiff advanced Rs.1 lac to the defendant through his (defendant's) Karigar (artisan) and defendant acknowledged receipt of the amount by giving three receipts on the said date one of Rs.30,000/- and the other two of Rs.35,000/- each. Plaintiff further pleaded that it was a custom in the shoe market of Agra (which is famous for shoe business), that the Karigars of the people who are in the business of making/getting made the shoes obtain the commodities (raw material) required for shoe making and as a token of receipt the real businessman for whom the shoes are to be made by the karigar issues a receipt signed by him showing the name of the karigar which is handed over to the person supplying the shoe material on credit. The plaintiff in order to prove his case filed the three receipts which the defendant had signed and which bore the name of Pappu the karigar. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that in Agra particularly in its locality Heeng Ki Mandi such custom is prevalent and against the receipt payment is made within two months.

(3.) The Trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the receipts were not negotiable.