The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the jural relationship and actual supply of goods, resulting in no entitlement for recovery of the claimed amount.

ORDER :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Appellants have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 14.8.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.293B/2014 by which learned 8^th Additional District Judge, Raipur has decreed the suit filed by plaintiff /respondent No.1.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that plaintiff/respondent No.1, proprietor of Universal Hardware Paint & Electrical, Raipur, filed a civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,85,977/- from defendants pleading therein that defendant No.6 with the consent of defendants No.1 to 5 had approached the plaintiff and placed order for paint and other goods for its supply. Details of the order placed for supply of goods is pleaded by plaintiff in Para-4 of plaint. It is also pleaded that plaintiff has supplied other goods also, date and amount of goods supplied is mentioned in Para-5 of plaint. After receipt of goods, defendants have not paid the value of goods and amount as mentioned in bill. Plaintiff thereafter sent legal notice through his advocate to defendants and upon which they have orally requested for some time to make payment and when payment of bill was not made, the suit was filed for recovery of total sum of Rs.1,85,977/-.

3. Defendant No.6 filed written statement to suit admitting claim as mentioned in the plaint.

4. Defendants No.1 to 4 also filed written statement denying the pleadings made in the plaint. They have denied the fact of issuing any direction to defendant No.6 or authorizing him for placing order of supply of any kind of good. Supply of any good to defendant No.1 to 4 by the plaintiff has also been denied in specific terms. It is also categorically denied that plaintiff ever supplied goods to college of defendants No.1 to 4 situated in village Murra of the value of Rs.1,77,600/- and goods valuing Rs.16,127/- at their office situated in Raipur and prayed for dismissal of suit.

5. Defendant No.5 was proceeded ex-parte.

6. Learned trial Court based on pleadings of respective parties has formulated as many as seven issues for consideration and upon considering pleadings and evidence, oral and documentary, brought on record by respective parties, decreed the suit of plaintiff by impugned judgment and decree, which is put to challenge in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is perverse. He contended that respondents No.1 to 4 have not directed respondent No.6or authorized him for placing order to purchase goods. It is further contended that plaintiff failed to prove placement of order by defendant No.6 or in consequence had supplied goods as ordered by defendant No.6. No document is placed before learned trial Court to prove the same. It is also contention of learned counsel for appellants that defendant No.6 at no point of time was appointed/deputed on any post in appellant institute. Learned trial Court has overlooked evidence of plaintiff wherein he admitted that he has not maintained any record like ledger book to show supply of material to appellant institute. Defendant No.6 has not entered into witness box to prove his pleadings and therefore written statement stated to be submitted on behalf of defendant No.6 and facts pleaded therein remain unproved. Appellants have not placed any order of supply of goods nor the goods have been received in th