IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that disputed documents and agreements raised triable issues that required evidence and could not be decided summarily.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The plaintiff has filed an application being GA 2 of 2018 praying for judgment and decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,36,94,687/-along with interest on admission. The defendant has filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being GA 3 of 2022 for dismissal of the suit.

2. The plaintiff is in the business of importing and thereafter selling Indonesian Steam Coal in the local market. The defendants are the traders in coal, coke dust and coke fines. The plaintiff and the defendants buy and sell each other’s products from one another and maintain mutual, open and current account. Lastly on 20th August, 2011, the plaintiff sold and the defendants brought coal worth of Rs. 1,60,49,096.92/-and the defendants accepted delivery of the coal and the invoices without any demur or protest. On 31st March, 2012 and 21st April, 2012, the defendants sold and plaintiff brought coke dust worth of Rs.13,47,892/-. The defendants made the payment to the plaintiff time to time and the last payment was made by the defendant to the plaintiff on 5th July, 2014 at Rs. 10,00,000/-by way of cheque.

3. Mr. Sarvapriyo Mukherjee, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that on 20th August, 2011, Indonesian Steam Coal is sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants and raised invoice of Rs. 1,60,49,096.92/-and the same was not disputed by the defendants. He submits that on 31st March, 2012 and 21st April, 2012, the defendants sold and delivered coke dust and raised invoices for an amount of Rs. 13,47,892/-.

4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in between 31st March, 2012 to 11th December, 2012, the defendants made part payment of Rs.48,00,000/-after adjusting the part payment of Rs.13,47,892/-on account of coke dust sold by the defendants to the plaintiff and after the adjustment of the said amount, an amount of Rs.99,01,204.92/-falls due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

5. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that on 1st April, 2014, the defendants have issued confirmation of accounts to the plaintiff showing that the aggregate amount due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff is Rs. 99,01,204.92/-. He submits that on 5th July, 2014, the defendants have made the last payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-by way of cheque and after deducting the said amount, an amount of Rs. 89,01,204.92/-is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

6. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the balance sheet and Schedule of balance sheets filed by the defendants as on 31st March, 2015 with the Income Tax Authority showing that the defendants owe the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 89,01,204.92/-after adjustment of Rs. 10,00,000/-in the previous financial year. He submits that on 1st April, 2016, the defendants sent confirmation of accounts to the plaintiff showing that an amount Rs. 89,01,204.92/-is payable to the plaintiff. He submits after filing of the suit, the defendants forwarded a copy of confirmation of account for the financial year 2015-2016 duly signed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 for confirmation and signature of the plaintiff. He submits that the confirmation of account also indicates that a sum of Rs.89,01,204.92/-is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

7. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the defendants have no defence whatsoever to such unequivocal admission and the defendants have admitted the liability of Rs.89,01,204.92/-towards the plaintiff in the balance sheet and confirmation of account.

8. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the application filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable as none of the grounds of the application is covered under the said provision. He submits that suppression of facts is not a ground for rejection of plaint. He submits that while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC only averments and documents produced along with the plaint are required to be considered an