L. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20-10-1989 passed in O. S. 2801 of 1986 by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city.

( 2 ) THE appellants were the defendants in the said suit and the respondent was the plaintiff. Therefore, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as the defendants and the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the said suit on 28th February, 1986 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,23,628-81; claiming Rs. 17,85,920-81 towards the value of the drugs supplied, Rs. 9,37,608-00 towards interest at 18% per annum and Rs. 100/- towards the notice charges.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiff may be shortly stated thus: The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm doing business in drugs at bangalore. By a memo dated 1-10-1980 the second defendant authorised the third defendant to purchase specialist drugs from the plaintiff and two others mentioned therein subject to other conditions of purchase. Pursuant to the said memo, the third defendant was placing indents with the plaintiff for supply of drugs on credit basis. Accordingly, the plaintiff was supplying the same to ESIS dispensary, Rajajinagar, Bangalore and used to obtain acknowledgments from the third defendant whenever drugs were supplied. During the course of the said transactions, the plaintiff supplied drugs worth several lakhs to the third defendant. However, in this case we are concerned only with the supply of drugs from 1-1-1983 to 26-3-1983 aggregating to Rs. 17,85,920-81. Despite repeated demands the defendants were irregular in making payments and the plaintiff had to stop further supplies with effect from 28-3-1983. The plaintiff also sought for intervention of the Chief Minister, Labour Minster and Transport minister for the settlement of its bills by submitting several representations. According to the plaintiff only 30% of the claim was settled by defendants 2 and 3 on account of the intervention of either the Labour Minister or the Transport minister and it could not recover the balance amount inspite of its best efforts. Therefore, the plaintiff had to cause a legal notice dated 4-12-1985 under section 80 of C. P. C. to the second defendant demanding payment of a sum of rs. 17,85,920-81 together with interest at 18% per annum. However, the second defendant did not comply with the demand made in the said notice. Left with no other option, the plaintiff had to bring a law suit against the defendants for recovery of the aforesaid amount with interest and costs.

( 5 ) THE defendants have filed a bald written statement wherein they have denied the suit claim and contended that the two documents on which the suit claim was based were not genuine and that the Lokayukta was investigating into the fraudulent acts committed by the plaintiff in connection with the said supplies.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parlies, the trial court framed the following issues: 1. Does plaintiff prove that the supplied drugs to the defendants 2 and 3 and that the sum of Rs. 17,85,920-81 is due by the defendants? 2. Whether the court-fee paid is sufficient? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest claimed? 4. To what decree?

( 7 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff, Sri Subhaschandra, one of its partners gaveevidence as P. W. 1 and produced seventy (70) documents which have been marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 20.

( 8 ) ON behalf of the defendants, the Director of ESIS (Services) Dr. Honnabovi was examined as D. W. 1 and no document was produced by them.

( 9 ) THE trial Court on appreication of the evidence on record answered Issue No. 1 in the affirmative, and Issue No. 3 in the negative and found it unnecessary to answer Issue No. 2 on the ground that it did not arise for consideration since the plaintiff had prosecuted the suit in forma pmiperis. Consequently, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 17,85,920-81, with interest at 6 per ce

Click Here to Read the rest of this document