The defendants in O.S.No.851 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 15-03-2004 made in O.S.No.851 of 1997, had preferred the present appeal.

2. In A.S.M.P.No.11672 of 2004 on 29-06-2004 interim stay was granted on condition of deposit of half of the decretal amount and costs within a period of eight weeks. The same had been complied with and the amount deposited had been permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 27-10-2004 in A.S.M.P.No.13865 of 2004 and 11672 of 2004.

3. The respondent in the appeal as plaintiff in the suit aforesaid, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,58,980-39ps with subsequent interest and costs. The learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.W.1, marked Exs.A1 to A16 and recorded findings and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellants-defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,58,980-39ps with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit i.e. 03-10-1997 till the date of the decree, i.e.15-03-2004 and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred the present appeal.

4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants had taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.1 and also Exs.A1 to A16 and would maintain that in the absence of acceptable evidence, the trial Court totally erred in passing the decree. The learned counsel also would maintain that the question of drawing adverse inference as against the appellants-defendants would not arise for the reason that the respondent as plaintiff may have to establish its case irrespective of the fact whether the defendants entered into the witness box or not. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the scope and ambit thereof and further distinguished the decision in VIDHYADHAR v. MANKIKRAO, AIR 1999 SC 1441 = 1999 (2) ALD (SCSN) 17.

5. On the contrary Sri Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the trial Court, the evidence of P.W.1 and also referred to Exs.A1 to A16 in general and Exs.A7 and A9 in particular and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be found fault. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in VIDHYADHAR v. MANKIKRAO(supra).

6. Heard the counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

7. In the light of the rival submissions made by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal.

1. Whether the findings recorded by the trial Court are to be confirmed or liable to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case?

2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled?

8. Point No.1:- The parties hereinafter would be referred to, for the purpose of convenience, as shown in O.S.No.851 of 1997 aforesaid.

9. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,58,980-39ps with subsequent interest and costs. It was averred in the plaint as hereunder:

The plaintiff concern does business in transport. The defendants for the purpose of transporting their products have appointed the plaintiff as one of their Transport Contractors vide letters dated 30-11-1992 and 19-01-1994 of the defendants. The first defendant passed the bills and arranges payment of the transport charges to the plaintiff. It is from the 2nd defendant distribution unit at Visakhapatnam that the products are dispatched to several places. The plaintiff transported light diesel oil, fuel oil and bitrumen from Visakhapatnam to Sanatnagar Pamjam, Hyderabad, Nandyal and Kavali on different