JAGTAR SINGH Vs. HUF FIRM CHARU PESTICIDE AND COMPANY MALOUT DISTRICT MUKTSAR THROUGH SAT PARKASH KHARBANDA ITS PROPRIETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1730 and 1921 of 2004 as the same arise out of two suits containing similar facts and the plaintiff is also common in both the suits. The facts have however been taken from Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery 1,09,734/- i.e. Rs. 78,575/- on account of principal amount and Rs. 31,159/- on account of interest, on the basis of entries of account books and credit memos. It was averred that the defendant purchased pesticides on credit from the plaintiff from time to time. The defendant used to put signatures on credit memos after understanding the contents thereof. It was further averred that the defendant purchased pesticides on credit for an amount of Rs. 78,575/- which he did not pay despite demand. Interest at the rate of 2% per month was also claimed on the principal amount outstanding against the defendant.

(2.) Defendant contested the suit stating that the suit had been filed on false pleas. In fact the pesticides supplied by the plaintiff were of a very poor quality and besides it were adulterated and misbranded for which the defendant had filed a suit for damages before the District Consumer Court, Muktsar and the present suit was a counterblast of the suit filed by the defendant. Defendant denied his dealings of business with the plaintiff and stated further that he never authorized any person of the name of Bhupinder Singh for the purchase of the pesticides from the plaintiff and in any case, if some pesticides were purchased, the same were purchased in cash.

(3.) Plaintiff produced the original record in court and copies of entries in the cash books Ex.P1/A to Ex. P22/A and copies of ledger Ex. P1/B to Ex. P22/B. Plaintiff while appearing as his own witness as PW-1 clarified on record by producing a copy of order dated 14.8.2000, Ex.P-26 that the complaint filed by the defendant regarding the alleged poor quality and adulteration was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum, Muktsar. It was further found by the trial court that on the other hand there was solitary and self-serving statement of the defendant who admitted his signatures on the credit memos. The contents of credit memos further agreed with the entries made in the account books. It was consequently held that the defendant had purchased pesticides from the plaintiff on credit and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the said amount along with interest. Suit was consequently decreed for the recovery of Rs. 1,09,734/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the suit till realization.