IN RE Vs. SUDHIR & COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To place certain documents on record and to prove the same by way of additional evidence on the ground that the company is maintaining huge record rooms for keeping records, which are subject to audit and sometime due to some human error, it takes time to search the old record and since the transaction was old, the documents could not be traced earlier and therefore could not be produced before the Court despite due diligence and plaintiff/applicant has never acted wrongfully and negligent manner and now after proper and careful search of records, the plaintiff/applicant has found the documents, proposed to be placed and proved on record in evidence, after the closure of plaintiff evidence, leading to filing of this application without delay.

(2.) In the main suit, recording of evidence of defendant is yet to start. The evidence of plaintiff was closed on 15.6.2017 whereafter on 25.8.2017 and 8.12.2017 evidence of defendants could not be recorded for want of steps to be taken by the defendants. In the meanwhile, on 17.11.2017 present application stands filed along with photocopies of documents with further averments that original documents are in the custody of defendant No.1 and also in the office of Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu, Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3.) Main suit has been filed on 16th February, 2013 for recovery of sum of Rs. 36,20,430/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum with averments in the plaint that defendant No.1 was manufacturing 'Gum Rosin' which was used by plaintiff as a raw material for manufacturing resin and plaintiff was also selling Patra to defendant No.1. It is further case of the plaintiff that plaintiff and defendant had been raising independent invoices and bills to each other with regard to respective sales of goods made to each other and there existed a reciprocity of demands and there was independent dealing between the parties and the account maintained for this purpose was mutual, open and current and in alternative, it is pleaded that in case it is considered that account was not mutual, open and current, in that event also, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of said amount as the payments have been made by the plaintiff to the defendants on account of business transaction for making purchase of Gum Rosin on various dates from time to time.