M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. The unsuccessful defendants had preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’ for brevity) assailing the decree and judgment dated 19.06.2006 of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad passed in OS.No.34 of 2001 for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,39,841/- with interest at the rate of 36% per annum simple on Rs.7,29,140/- from the date of the suit till the date of payment or realization and costs.

2. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants (‘the defendants’ for short) and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff (‘the plaintiff’ for short). We have perused the material record.

3. The aforementioned suit for recovery of money filed by the sole plaintiff against the 1st defendant company and the 2nd defendant, who is the Managing Director of the 1st defendant company, was resisted by the said defendants by filing separate written statements.

4. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court had framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the Official Liquidator?

3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the second defendant?

4. To what relief?

5. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and exhibits A1 to A20 were marked on his side. The 2nd defendant and a supporting witness were examined as DWs1 and 2 and exhibits B1 to B3 and X1 were marked on the side of the defendants.

6. On merits, the trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff and had held that both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the aggrieved defendants are before this Court.

7. The summary of grounds urged in the grounds of appeal and the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, in brief, are as follows:

The suit claim insofar as the recovery of an amount of Rs.2,68,800/- comprising of an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards principal and Rs.26,800/- towards interest payable in relation to the agreement dated 21.11.1997 is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code. Insofar as the claim for recovery of the amount of Rs.4,89,140/- under two bills dated 16.07.1998 and 03.08.1998 together with interest at 36% per annum, the plaintiff had failed to prove the supplies made by him under the said two bills for the amounts of Rs.2,68,600/- and Rs.2,20,540/- respectively. The 2nd defendant in his personal capacity is not liable to pay the suit amount or any part thereof. Therefore, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the 2nd defendant who is neither a necessary nor proper party. The 1st defendant company was under liquidation for some time. Therefore, the filing of the suit and continuation of the suit against the company is bad in law and the suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. In any view of the matter, the Official Liquidator is a necessary and proper party and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the Official Liquidator who is a necessary party. Exhibit A2, the copy of the agreement and exhibits A3 to A6, the copies of the bills numbers 38 and 48 and the copies of the delivery challans are inadmissible in evidence, they being the Photostat copies. Mere marking of exhibits A3 to A6 being the bills and delivery challans in relation to claim no.2 is no proof in the eye of law and the 2nd claim based on the said documents is not proved in accordance with law by proving the contents of the same by producing the originals and by examining the persons connected with the transactions under the said documents. The suit is barred by law of limitation. The trial Court did not accurately consider the facts pleaded in the defence and had failed to properly appreciate the material facts and the evidence and had mislead itself and had passed an erroneous judgment. The trial Court had brushed aside the most valuable admissions and h