Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PARTH PRATEEM SAHU
Professional Institute of Engineering And Technology Situated – Appellant
Versus
Murtaza S/o Abdul Kayyum Jiya – Respondent
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 8th 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 s
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.
The plaintiff failed to prove defects in goods supplied under the Reseller Agreement, resulting in dismissal of the suit and a decree for the defendant's counter-claim for unpaid invoices.
Failure to provide sufficient evidence of delivery and substantiate claims leads to dismissal of recovery suit.
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.
The respondent must prove the existence of a special business practice, and mis-description in the plaint does not necessarily result in non-suit.
The absence of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not render computer-generated ledger accounts inadmissible, and the non-examination of the person who made entrie....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
