The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the existence of facts, and the plaintiff must first prove the genuineness of the transaction before the defendant is required to disprove it.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, by the Original Defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 280 of 2017 (the “said suit”) assailing the order dated 3rd February 2020, passed by the 10th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aurangabad, allowing the application by the Original Plaintiff Respondent for framing the following additional issue:

“Whether the defendant proves that the Tax invoices, the Delivery Challans are false, forged and fabricated document”.

2. It is the Plaintiffs case in the suit, that the Defendant, for the purposes of his restaurant was purchasing groceries referred to as kirana, from Plaintiff and therefore had business relation with him since 2014. That the kirana material was supplied as and when ordered by the Defendant as per the respective tax invoices and delivery challans and the payment was being made by the Defendant in part as a mutual running account. That supply of Kirana was recorded in the Ledger Account of the Defendant maintained by the Plaintiff in regular course of business showing details of the supply and of payment i.e. debit and credit having reference to tax invoice numbers and opening balance/ closing balance. It is submitted that accordingly, on 13th January, 2016, an amount of Rs. 8, 70,316/- was due. The Plaintiff claims to have sent notice on 04.03.2017 to the Defendant for recovery of the amount, which, despite correspondence and reminders remained unpaid. The said suit therefore came to be filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,70,316/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the recovery of the entire amount from the Defendant.

3. In the Written Statement filed by the Defendant, the claims made by the Plaintiff have been denied. The Defendant has denied that he knows the Plaintiff. It is stated that Defendant has no restaurant nor is he running any business. It is submitted that the Defendant has never purchased any kirana goods from the Plaintiff. The business relation/transaction with Plaintiff, the supply of Kirana by the Plaintiff or the receipt of tax invoices or delivery challans of the goods or any payment made to the Plaintiff, the recording of any ledger account containing any details of supply or payments has been completely denied as false. That there is no privity of contract nor there is any transaction between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. The notice or any correspondence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant or the suit claim of Rs. 8, 70,316/- is completely denied as false. It is submitted that there is no cause of action. Pertinently, it is stated in paragraph 11 of the Written Statement that the tax invoices and delivery challans are false, forged and fabricated. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not the Proprietor of “Hotel Balle Balle”, nor does he have any concern with the said hotel. It is also submitted that the suit is false, fictitious. That the respondent/plaintiff is causing harassment mental and physical and creating false liability by fling the said suit that the said suit be dismissed with costs and compensatory cost of Rs. 25000/- be awarded to the Petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Bhandari has drawn the attention of this court to `Exhibit of to the petition and submits that on 13th June 2019 the trial court at Aurangabad has framed issues in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the said issues are set out here under:-

“ISSUES:-

[1] Does plaintiff prove that, defendant used to purchase Kirana goods from his restaurant from him?

[2] Does plaintiff prove that, out of their business transaction on amount on Rs 8,70,316/- as on 13.01.2016 was due or outstanding to him from defendant?

[3] Is plaintiff entitled for recovery of Rs. 8,70,316/- from defendant/ If yes at what rate of interest.

[4] Is defendant entitled for compensatory costs?

[5] What order and decree.”

5. However, by application dated 20th July 2019, the Plaintiff,