KARNAIL KAUR Vs. SEKHON TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff M/s Shekhon Trading Company, New Grain Market, Khanna through its partner Rajinder Singh had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.5,62,851.34 i.e. Rs.5,21,159.34 as principal amount and Rs.41,692.00 as interest thereon w.e.f. 31/10/1998 to 21/2/1999 at the rate of 2% per month against Gurmail Singh son of Sardara Singh, resident of village Kotla (Bhari), Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana on the averments that plaintiff has been working as a commission agent in New Grain Market, Khanna and defendant had dealings with it; that the defendant used to sell his agricultural produce through the plaintiff and at times used to borrow money in cash; that the entries in that regard were made in the account books of the plaintiff; that account of the defendant was being maintained regularly in the account books of the plaintiff in due course of business; that on 31/10/1998 the account of the defendant was settled with the plaintiff firm and an amount of Rs.5,21,159.34 was found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff; that the defendant agreed to pay the interest on the said amount @ 2% per month, which is customary and prevalent in the market, however, he did not do so despite several requests made by the plaintiff and service of legal notice by the plaintiff upon defendant giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit in question.

(2.) On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit taking various legal objections contending that the suit is not within limitation; that the plaintiff has no locus standi to bring the suit and no cause of action arose to it to do so; that the Court at Khanna did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and suit was not maintainable; that the plaintiff had not produced his account books at the time of filing of the suit together with the photocopies of the entries on which it relied upon for the purpose of examination and comparison by the Court and to mark the same for the purpose of identification as provided under Order 7 Rule 17 CPC, therefore, the entries are inadmissible in evidence. On merits, the defendant admitted that he used to sell his agricultural produce through the plaintiff but the alleged entries in books of account of plaintiff were wrong and concocted stating that the plaintiff with mala fide and fraudulent intention added the figure 30 before the figure 3700 in the entries dtd. 24/10/96, added figure 1 before figure 5000 in entry dtd. 4/11/96, added figure 1 before figure 10,000/- in the entry dtd. 13/11/96, added the figure 1 before the figure 6,000/- in the entry dtd. 13/10/1997, added figure 1 before figure 80,000 in the entry dtd. 10/11/97 and added figure 3 before the figure 200 in the entry dtd. 30/5/1998, therefore the entries are fraudulent and forged and cannot form any basis of claim against the defendant; that the defendant is an illiterate rural person; that from Hari - 1995 onwards up to Hari - 1998, the defendant had sold his crop at the shop of the plaintiff of value of more than Rs.4,50,000.00 but payment of that amount was not made to the defendant on one excuse or other; that the plaintiff runs shop/purchase centre of commission agents at village Kheri and village Raipur Majri also where too the defendant used to sell his crop; that the plaintiff did not credit the amount of crops sold at the said shop/purchase centre vide 'J' form and receipts of some other sales in the account of defendant, therefore, the amount claimed in the suit was false and frivolous. The defendant contended that he had not settled his account with the plaintiff on 31/10/1998 and alleged entry dtd. 31/10/1998 was not signed/thumb marked by him. The defendant had not agreed to pay any interest. Denying the remaining assertions, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff had filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.