(1.) BY this appeal, appellants/original defendants have challenged the appellate judgment and order dated 17th August, 1993 passed in Regular Civil Appeal no. 88 of 1990 whereby the 2nd Additional district Judge, Yavatmal set aside the judgment and decree dated 18th August, 1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, kclapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 1986 and thereby partly decreed the suit of original plaintiff (present respondent ).
(2.) DISPUTE is in a narrow compass. Plaintiff sold 4 quintals of cotton for Rs. 2200/- to the defendants on 17th April, 1983. Then on 24th April, 1983 he sold to the defendants 92 kg of Til for Rs. 595/- and 7. 05 qtl of tur for Rs. 3535/- to the defendants. Defendant's Diwanji issued receipts. On 24th April, 1983 plaintiff supplied fodder of Rs. 1100/-and cement worth Rs. 225/- to the defendants. Since defendants failed to pay the price of goods, Plaintiff filed Suit for recovery of rs. 7645/- against defendants. The defendants denied suit claim in toto. They denied that there was any such transaction as is alleged in the suit. They stated that till 1983 defendant No. 1 was licence holder operating in agricultural Produce Market committee and thereafter it is defendant No. 2 who is operating and, therefore, there was no question of entering into any transaction of purchasc outside the market yard. It was then alleged that they had supplied 800 feet tiles worth Rs. 1600/- to the plaintiff, and filing of suit was tactics t6 avoid payment of that outstanding sum. They prayed for dismissal of suit.
(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, plaintiff examined himself and one witness by name dashrath while defendants examined defendant no. 1 learned trial Court recorded a finding that plaintiff failed to prove sale of any of the items stated in the suit and consequently, he was not entitled to recover amount as alleged. As regards tenability of suit, learned trial Court held that its jurisdiction was not ousted. Ultimately, suit came to be dismissed.