JUDGMENT :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

1. Heard Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Salunkhe, learned Counsel for the respondent. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. The present application raises an interesting question regarding the presumption under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. To understand the position appropriately, few facts are narrated as under:

The complainant is a partnership firm dealing in the business of publication of advertisement in the newspaper, local daily Navbharat. The applicant/accused is the Proprietor of M/s Reena Art Advertising Agency. It is alleged that there were transactions between the complainant and the accused, who caused to be published advertisements of his clients in ‘Navbharat’ through the complainant and on every gross bill amount, the accused was entitled to 15% commission. It is further stated that the accused had caused to be published four advertisements in the local daily ‘Navbharat’ through the complainant, of his client namely, Kashiba Sales and Vedita Agro/EDU Computer Private Limited on various dates i.e. on 19.11.2011, 11.11.20