T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant in a suit for recovery of money based on two invoices is questioning the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-company. The fact that the supply was made under two invoices by the plaintiff-company is not in dispute. On the other hand, in the written statement, the points that are raised are :

(1) The suit is based on account and account copy is not produced ; (2) The fabricated frames were not up to expected standard. The defendant was prepared to return the copies as sub-standard goods ; (3) The suit was not verified by person authorised in law to verify and sign the pleadings ; (4) The question of payment of interest does not arise, as there is no question of payment of principal dues. The trial court considering the evidence adduced by PW-1 and the documents filed by the plaintiff exhibits P1 to P5 and also taking into consideration the evidence of DW-1 with no documents to file as exhibit came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and also granted interest at 18 per cent. p. a. Mr. Sampath Kumar, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the company has not been represented by the rightful person within the meaning of Order 29, Rule 1. According to him, no director nor any secretary is assigned to verify the pleadings and even power of attorney produced as exhibit P1 has been executed subsequent to the filing of the plaint. Therefore, it cannot operate retrospectively. The third contention was that he was a dealer and more or less in the position of an agent and therefore in between principal and agent when the goods were not sold in the market he is entitled to return it and no liability can be fallen on the defendant. The final submission was that P. W. 1 himself admitted that there is no condition for payment of interest, consequently interest is not payable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that exhibit P-1 is dated december 30, 1992, in favour of Mr. K. V. Lakshmanan, the person who has signed and verified the plaint and therefore the contentions contra cannot be entertainable. Heard the respective counsel. Before going into other aspects of the case, I find that the evidence of D. W. 1 in the cross-examination breaks the back of the contentions now raised before me by learned counsel for the petitioner. This is what he says :

"it is true that I have received the goods as noted in exhibits P-3 and P-4, the frames manufactured are my property".

In the light of this admission of having received the goods, it is too late in the day, for the defendant to deny the liability and it is too big a pill to swallow the contention that he is not liable to pay the price of such goods received by him. Once it is admitted that under exhibits P3 and P4 the goods have been received, then it comes a transaction within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act and all the provisions of law will automatically follow. In fact, in exhibit P3, there is a clear acknowledgment dated July 24, 1991, with the company's seal on the sale of goods on the invoice. In exhibit P4 also, on August 5, 1991, the receipt of the goods is acknowledged. I am really surprised if not shocked to know the attitude of the defendant-company of the total denial of the receipt of goods or about the contention regarding non-payment in the sale. In fact, it is seen under exhibit P5, a notice was issued by the plaintiff-company to the defendant-company calling upon them to pay the amount due. No reply was admittedly marked which should make anybody appreciate the stand now taken by the defendant. Therefore, there can be no dispute nor any contention that can be entertained as to the liability of the defendant/petitioner for payment of the amount due. Evidently, to avoid such payment, contention in the form of legal technicalities is raised. His contention is under Order 29, Rule 1, which reads as follows :

"subscription and verification of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document