PRABIYOTSING Vs. SHRIVALLABH RAMGOPAL RAMCHANDRAJI DARAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition fled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, by the Original Defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 280 of 2017 (the "said suit") assailing the order dated 3rd February 2020, passed by the 10th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aurangabad, allowing the application by the Original Plaintif Respondent for framing the following additional issue:

(2.) It is the Plaintiffs case in the suit, that the Defendant, for the purposes of his restaurant was purchasing groceries referred to as kirana, from Plaintif and therefore had business relation with him since 2014. That the kirana material was supplied as and when ordered by the Defendant as per the respective tax invoices and delivery challans and the payment was being made by the Defendant in part as a mutual running account. That supply of Kirana was recorded in the Ledger Account of the Defendant maintained by the Plaintif in regular course of business showing details of the supply and of payment i.e. debit and credit having reference to tax invoice numbers and opening balance/ closing balance. It is submitted that accordingly, on 13th January, 2016, an amount of Rs. 8, 70,316/- was due. The Plaintif claims to have sent notice on 04.03.2017 to the Defendant for recovery of the amount, which, despite correspondence and reminders remained unpaid. The said suit therefore came to be fled by the plaintif for recovery of Rs.8,70,316/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the recovery of the entire amount from the Defendant.

(3.) In the Written Statement fled by the Defendant, the claims made by the Plaintif have been denied. The Defendant has denied that he knows the Plaintif. It is stated that Defendant has no restaurant nor is he running any business. It is submitted that the Defendant has never purchased any kirana goods from the Plaintif. The business relation/transaction with Plaintif, the supply of Kirana by the Plaintif or the receipt of tax invoices or delivery challans of the goods or any payment made to the Plaintif, the recording of any ledger account containing any details of supply or payments has been completely denied as false. That there is no privity of contract nor there is any transaction between the Defendant and the Plaintif. The notice or any correspondence between the Plaintif and the Defendant or the suit claim of Rs. 8, 70,316/- is completely denied as false. It is submitted that there is no cause of action. Pertinently, it is stated in paragraph 11 of the Written Statement that the tax invoices and delivery challans are false, forged and fabricated. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not the Proprietor of "Hotel Balle Balle", nor does he have any concern with the said hotel. It is also submitted that the suit is false, fctitious. That the respondent/plaintif is causing harassment mental and physical and creating false liability by fling the said suit that the said suit be dismissed with costs and compensatory cost of Rs. 25000/- be awarded to the Petitioner.