The importance of credible evidence, such as bills and invoices, in proving entitlement to recover a suit amount.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 24.4.2004 decreeing the suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.4,25,499.25/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum simple.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of monies against the appellant/defendant on the ground that the appellant/defendant after receiving goods had issued a cheque for payment of the amount of Rs. 4,25,499.25/-, but the same was dishonoured when presented. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his counsel, which having failed to yield desired results, the subject suit came to be filed.

3. The suit of the plaintiff was originally filed under Order 37 CPC and in which after grant of leave to defend the appellant/defendant filed his written statement and contested the suit. The main defence of the appellant/defendant was that the statement of account filed by the respondent/plaintiff did not correctly reflect the transactions between the parties. It was also pleaded that the subject cheque which was dishonoured was given only as a security to cover another cheque.

4. After the pleadings were complete the trial court framed only one issue as to the entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff to recover the suit amount. This issue no.1 has been dealt with by the trial Court in favour of the respondent /plaintiff by making the following observations:-

“7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that plaintiff never supplied any goods to the defendant. It is further submitted by him that the details of the bill were not mentioned in the plaint or in the notice dated 12.7.1999 served on the defendant. It is submitted that these details were not furnished because the goods were never supplied. Defendant has filed his affidavit towards examination in chief. In his affidavit defendant has stated that he is not liable to make any payment to the plaintiff. Plaintiff never supplied him any goods at any point of time on credit basis including the present transaction. In fact defendant intended to say that he had no business dealings with the plaintiff. However, in his cross examination, he admitted that he know the plaintiff and he has business terms with him. He also admitted that whenever he had taken goods even prior to matter in dispute, he had issued the cheques and those cheques were encashed. He has also submitted that he has issued the impugned cheque, however, he stated that he cheque was issued blank and only it bears his signature.

8. It is settled law that plaint has to be brief and concise. Only the facts are to be pleaded and not the evidence. In the plaint it is specifically stated that plaintiff had supplied the goods to the defendant from time to time and this fact is not disputed by the defendant in his cross examination, rather he had admitted that he had business dealings with the plaintiff. Along with plaint, plaintiff has filed copies of all the bills and invoices copies of which was supplied. Plaintiff was not required to give details of these bills and invoices either in the notice or in the plaint.

9. Defendant has disputed his signatures on these bills and invoices. Both the parties engaged handwriting experts, to prove their respective case. As usual, the expert has given the opinion in favour of the party who has engaged them. Time and again the report of handwriting expert have came under criticism. It is never seen that the expert has given the report against the party who has engaged him. It is useful to refer to case of Savitari Vs. Fashion Linkers & others 2003-III-AD(Delhi) 980. In that case it was held that it is well known that science of comparing handwriting is not a perfect science. Invariably two experts differ from each other. The experts generally