JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant against whom plaintiff was able to obtain a decree amounting to Rs. 3296/- with proportionate costs. The defendant was also directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till date of realization.
2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 44,195.36 by asserting in the plaint that the defendant-firm had placed an order with it vide order dated 25.9.1973 for supply of three hydraulics scrap baling presses at the rate of Rs. 1,33,333.34 for each press. According to terms of the contract, first baling press was to be delivered by the plaintiff-firm before September 1973, second press before November 1973 and third press before January 1974. An amount of Rs. 25,00/- was given as advance by the defendant-firm to the Plaintiff-firm which was to be adjusted against the first press. Sixty per cent of the amount towards the first press was to be sent through a bank draft and the balance 20% was to be paid after two months of satisfactory performance. In so far as other two presses were concerned 80% of the amount was to be sent through bank draft and balance was to be paid after two months of the satisfactory performance. First press was despatched by the plaintiff-firm through road transport of M/s Parkash Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., to Vishakhapatnam as per the instructions received from the defendant but the defendant did not retire the documents from the bank with the result that the transporter did not deliver the press and held it in the stock in his godown at Hyderabad. This fact was duly intimated by the transporter to the plaintiff company. The plaintiff was again informed by the transporter that the press which was earlier detained at Hyderabad was despatched to vishakhapatnam but the same could not be delivered to the defendant because of the fact that defendant had not been able to retire the documents and present the same to the transporter. Ultimately, the press was given to the defendant and the defendant vide his letter dated May 7, 1974, advised the plaintiff to send its Erection Engineer immediately. For commissioning the press an engineer was sent by the plaintiff-firm to the defendant and the press was commissioned on May 25, 1974. In so far as the first press is concerned, the plaintiff claimed that, an amount of Rs. 27,466.66 was due to it on account of delayed payment, interest charges as also the remaining amount which was towards the price of the press. We are not much concerned in this appeal with regard to the remaining amount and it shall be enough to mention that the remaining amount was claimed as the delivery of two other presses was not taken by the defendant and the difference of prices at which the presses were to be sold to the defendant and the price at which the presses were actually sold that was claimed in the suit by the plaintiff.
3. The defendant contested that suit on number of grounds details whereof is not necessary to mention in view of the limited challenge to the findings recorded by the trial Court. However, the pleadings of the parties give rise to the following issues :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff-firm is registered under Indian Partnership Act and the suing man is its registered partner? OPP
(2) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest? If so at what rate? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount in suit? OPP
(5) Whether the defendant has suffered any loss? If so, to what extent? OPP
(6) Relief.
As mentioned above, the Trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 27,466.66 with interest etc. as fully detailed above whereas with regard to the remaining amount the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
4. The only argument raised by Mr. Jain, the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff is that there is no evidence whatsoever brought on the record to show that an amount of Rs. 27,466.66 was payable by defendant as part payment which was still not paid or on account of loss suffered by the plaintiff for the reason that delivery of the presses was not taken at a proper time.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears to this Court that the sole contention raised by Mr. Jain has no substance whatsoever. The details of the amount due and for which suit was filed are mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint. PW-1 i.e. plaintiff when he appeared as his own witness clearly stated in the examination-in-chief that he had brought the original account books of the relevant years which were maintained in his supervision in the ordinary course of business and all the account books were in tune with what was mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint. This witness was not at all cross-examined with regard to the authenticity of the accounts maintained by the plaintiff. The witness was not even questioned with regard to an amount of Rs. 27,466.66. In rebuttal only the Purchase Officer of the defendant appeared as DW-1. Even he did not remotely mention even in examination-in-chief that no amount was due to the plaintiff-firm. The Trial Court relied upon the account books which were maintained in due course of business as also oral statement of plaintiff and defendant and in my view rightly came to the conclusion that so far as amount of Rs. 27,466.66 is concerned that was certainly payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. As mentioned above, there is no merit in the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. That being so, the appeal is devoid of any merit, and is dismissed. The findings of the Trial Court on all the issues and the judgment and decree, are affirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.