( 1 ) THIS appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1987 in O. S. No. 1486 of 1984 on the file of the I Addl. Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the suit with costs filed for recovery of money.

( 2 ) THE said judgment is assailed in this appeal on the ground that the lower Court has not correctly appreciated the pleadings in the case, the issues framed and the evidence adduced in relation therto, that the trial Court has erred in holding that Ex. A-1 was issued to the defendant and the goods were infact supplied to him, the trial Court erred in rejecting the plea of the defendant in this regard and the evidence adduced, that the lower Court erred in holding that Ex. A-2 bills were delivered to defendant and the cheques were paid towards the said bill and that an amount of Rs. 25,058. 15 ps. is still due, the lower Court failed to see that there is no signature on Ex. A-2. that there is no proof of defendant having received it, that there is no delivery receipt or acknowledgement of receipt of goods, that the learned Trial Judge has avoided referring to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. it is further contended that the trial committed mistake in holding that the defendant is liable for A-3 bill which was admittedly issued to Shimoga National College of Engineering, that the goods were sent to them and there is absolutely no plea and no proof of the defendant acting as an agent, that there is no signature of defendant and that Rs. 13,000. 00 was paid by defendant or that the college did not pay the balance, and therefore prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the second defendant is the proprietor of the first defendant, the plaintiff manufactures and suppliers of Survey Instruments, drawing office equipments etc. and supplied material to the defendants on credit bills at the request of the defendant under (1) bill No. AEC/25/83-84 dated 20-6-1983 for Rs. 577. 00 (2) Bill No. AEC/40/83-84 dated 1-8-1983 for Rs. 25,048. 25 ps. and (3) Bill No. AEC/56/83-84 dated 12-9-1983 for Rs. 11,790. 00. According to the plaintiff, the bill amounts have to be paid within one month and in default 24% interest has to be paid on the amount due from the date of default as per trade and business custom, that the defendants have to pay a sum of Rs. 26,925. 25 ps. as on 12-9-1983 against the credit bills as per the account of the defendant standing in the books of account of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff requested several times the defendant to settle the accounts and pay the amounts due with interest, but the defendant did not pay the amount and the plaintiff sent notice dated 10-11-1983 under registered post demanding to pay the amount within 10 days of the receipt of the notice, though the defendant received the notice on 15-11-1983, but did not reply. Since the defendant did not pay the due amount even on several demands, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 26,925. 25 ps.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. it is stated that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. The plaintiff is put to strict proof that the person who signed the plaint is competent and authorised to sign the plaint. It is further stated that the person who signed the plaint has no authority to do so and the authorisation, if any, is not in accordance with law, and the plaintiff is put to strict proof that Sri Surender Kumar, who signed the plaint is the authorised agent of the plaintiff as defined under Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure, that the first defendant is not a proprietory concern, but it is a partnership concern. The defendant also denied the liability for the amounts mentioned in the plaint muchless int