SADULSHAHAR KRAY VIKRAY SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD. Vs. FIRM RAM AVATAR & SONS COTTON GRAIN MERCHANT & COMMISSION AGENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009 passed by District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated 07.07.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Ganganagar has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff - respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,368.32 p. with the averments that the plaintiff firm was Commission Agent & Grain Merchant at Sadulshahar; it was claimed that there was an agreement between the parties that on credit sales, for 5 days, there would be no interest charged and thereafter for 6 to 21st day interest @ Rs. 1.5% per month and from 21st day onwards 1.65% per month with quarterly rest would be charged; it was claimed that between 08.04.1992 to 21.01.2000 the appellants purchased Mustered and Cotton from the plaintiff firm and a sum of Rs. 1400/ - towards interest remained due against the appellant; it was further claimed that on 31.05.2000 the appellant society purchased 30 quintals of wheat worth Rs. 20,200.32 p. which amount remained outstanding and, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 36,368.32 p. i.e. principal amount + interest and claimed further interest @ 1.6% per month.

(3.) THE trial court framed four issues. On behalf of plaintiff two witnesses were examined and on behalf of defendants one witness was examined and after hearing the parties the trial court came to the conclusion that the goods were sold by the plaintiff and there was agreement of payment of interest at the rate claimed by the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that interest @ 9% per annum would be reasonable in view of the statements of DW -1 Ranvir Singh. The plea raised by the appellants were negated and, ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit to the extent of the principal sum Rs.20,224/ - alongwith interest @ 9% from 31.05.2000 and dismissed the suit qua defendant Nos.2 to 4.