The burden of proof lies on the defendants to provide documentary evidence of full payment, and failure to do so may result in adverse inferences by the Court.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

1. The captioned regular first appeal is filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.7.2019 passed in O.S. No. 8096/2016 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, wherein the suit is decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5,98,039/- with interest at 24% per annum from 14.5.2014 till its final realisation from defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally, however, the claim of the plaintiff insofar as Rs. 2,94,566/- is concerned, the same is dismissed. This part of the judgment and decree is not challenged by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

(a) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery by alleging that the plaintiff-firm is a distributor for paper and paper articles for reputed paper manufactures in India. The defendants are in the field of printing and other allied activities. The defendants purchased the paper and paper articles under the invoice No. B383/14-15 dated 12.05.2014 for a sum of Rs. 2,94,566/- and Rs. 5,98,039/- under invoice No. B407/14-15 dated 14.05.2014. The grievance of the plaintiff was that defendants made partial payment and the balance amount of Rs. 6,68,175/- was due and inspite of demand notices and consequent reminders, defendants failed to pay the outstanding balance which was due to the plaintiff. On these set of pleadings, the present suit was filed seeking recovery of Rs. 10,46,826/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the defendants jointly and severally.

(b) On receipt of summons, the defendants tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants stoutly denied the credit invoices on which the plaintiff has sought recovery and contended that defendants had never signed on the credit invoices of the plaintiff. The present suit is filed with an oblique motive to make wrongful gain. The defendants claimed that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and that they are not liable to pay any dues to the plaintiff and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

(c) Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is due in a sum of Rs. 10,46,826/- towards supply of paper and paper articles as claimed in para-2 of the plaint?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest if so at what rate?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for?

4. What order/decree?"

(d) The plaintiff firm in support of its case examined its power of attorney holder as P.W. 1 and to corroborate its claim adduced documentary evidence vide Exs. P1 to 16. The defendants to counter the claim of the plaintiff by way of rebuttal evidence let in ocular evidence of its Proprietor as D.W. 1 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs. D1 to 3.

(e) The Trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence answered issue No. 1 partly in the affirmative by holding that plaintiff has failed to prove the transaction under invoice No. B383/14-15 and therefore, the claim of plaintiff-company insofar as the amount of Rs. 2,94,566/- is concerned, the same was negatived and the suit came to be dismissed. Insofar as invoice bearing No. B407/14-15 is concerned, the Trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff by producing cogent and clinching evidence has succeeded in establishing that the plaintiff had supplied materials worth Rs. 5,98,039/- and therefore the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,98,039/- towards supply of materials under invoice No. B407/14-15.

(f) It is against the decreetal amount of Rs. 5,98,039/-, the defendants are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that he has already mad