HOTEL MANSAROVER Vs. VISHAL IRON STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal, the defendant -appellant seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2007 as passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 27/2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2006 as passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No. 11/2001 partly decreeing the money recovery suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the plaintiff -respondent M/s. Vishal Iron Store filed the suit aforesaid for recovery of an amount of Rs. 46,642.16 from the defendant -appellant with the submissions, inter alia, that the plaintiff was trading in ply -wood, wooden doors and windows etc.; that the defendant purchased on credit certain goods from the plaintiff under three bills dated 31.03.1998, 28.04.1998 and 12.09.1998 in the total value of Rs. 58,228/ -; that the defendant made part payments on 28.04.1998, 03.03.1999, 30.03.1999, 31.03.1999 and 28.09.1999, in total of Rs. 28,960/ -; and that the remaining amount of Rs. 29,268/ -was not paid by the defendant despite notice dated 18.08.2000. The plaintiff claimed a decree in the sum of Rs. 46,642.16 comprising of Rs. 29,268/ - towards principal and Rs. 17,380.16 towards interest @ 18% per annum. The defendant -appellant, while taking several objections on the frame of the suit, totally denied the plaint averment regarding credit purchases and part payments; and alleged that due to enmity the plaintiff had filed this false suit with fabricated documents. The learned Trial Court put the suit to trial after framing relevant issues. The proprietor of the plaintiff firm Hardev examined himself as PW -1 and produced documentary evidence including the bills, cash book and ledger entries, notice and acknowledgment thereof. In rebuttal, defendant examined DW -1 Man Singh and DW -2 Amrit Lal and produced alleged cash book entries Exs. A/1 to A/6.

(3.) BEFORE the learned First Appellate Court, the defendant -appellant primarily put emphasis on the contentions that the books of account of respondent -plaintiff were not maintained regularly; and while pointing out several discrepancies where the transactions were not entered in the account books on the day of corresponding bills and where certain bills were not entered in the books and so also the fact that certain bills in the bill book were left blank, it was contended that the books as produced by the plaintiff were required to be rejected. The learned First Appellate Court has dilated on all the minute details of the so -called discrepancies and has observed that such discrepancies of a day or two or so in the account books in relation to some of the entries of the corresponding bills would not falsify the entire account books; and has also referred to the statements of PW -1 Hardev, who has frankly admitted such discrepancies and explained their reasons too. On the other hand, the learned First Appellate Court has referred to the stand of simple denial of the defendant and has also noticed that the entries as produced by the defendant were not of regularly kept account books but were those scribed in some diary though the defendant stated about his regularly keeping the account books.