The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide supporting documents and evidence of transactions, commission agreements, and payments to prove liability in a recovery suit.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. Plaintiff/M/s Kashmiri Lal Surinder Kumar has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.20,55,000/- against three defendants. Defendant no. 1 as per the plaint is a partnership firm called as M/s Veer Bhan Ramesh Kumar . Defendant no.2 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sachdeva and defendant no.3 Sh. Jitender Kumar Sachdeva are stated to be partners of the defendant no.1/Firm.

2. As per the plaint the plaintiff firm is carrying on the business of selling of fruits and vegetables, including, as an agent thereof. It is stated in the plaint that defendant no.1 through defendant nos.2 and 3 had been purchasing fruits and vegetables from the plaintiff firm at Delhi and for such transaction defendants were paying commission to the plaintiff over and above the quoted price. Plaintiff states that invoices were issued from time to time and a total sum of Rs.75,25,268.72/- was due from the defendants for the period from 2.4.2001 till 3.3.2004 and against which defendants are stated to have made payments totaling to Rs.54,71,278.97/- thus leaving a balance of Rs.20,53,989.75/- and for recovery of which amount the subject suit has been filed alongwith the claim thereon of interest.

3. Defendants no.2 and 3 have appeared and contested the suit. As per the defendant nos. 2 and 3 there is no firm by the name of defendant no.1. It is stated that defendant nos. 2 and 3 have no connection or co-relation with any firm in the name of defendant no.1. The defendants deny that they ever did any business on credit/loan or commission basis with the plaintiff even at Delhi or Narwana. Territorial jurisdiction of this Court was also denied. Defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that no amount is due from the defendant nos. 2 and 3 to the plaintiff much less any amount towards commission payment.

4. The following issues were framed in the suit on 16.7.2010:

“(i) Whether the suit is liable to be rejected on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

(ii) Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.20,53,989.75/- from the defendant? OPP

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 24%, if so, on what amount and for what period? OPP

(v) Relief”

5. In support of its case, plaintiff has filed affidavit of evidence of Sh. Surinder Kumar as PW-1 and Sh. Jagdish Lal Dua as PW-2. Through these affidavits, the plaintiff firm being registered as a partnership firm under Section 59 of the Partnership Act,1932 has been proved by filing form issued by the Registrar of Firms exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. Through the affidavit of PW-1, it is also sought to be proved that signatures of the defendant no.2 appear on the back of the freight challan numbers 5124, 10060, 2554 and 2588 dated 22.6.2001, 3.7.2001, 30.9.2003 and 8.10.2003 respectively. These challans have hence been exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/5. The statement of account maintained by the plaintiff has been filed, proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/6. Legal notice dated 31.3.2005 served by the plaintiff upon the defendants has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/7 and the reply dated 19.4.2005 given by the defendants no.2 and 3 has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/8.

6. On behalf of the defendants evidence has been led by filing affidavits of evidence of defendant nos. 2 and 3. In the affidavit of defendant no.2, defendant no.2 has denied his signatures which as per the plaintiff existed on freight challans Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 have also in their affidavits denied the statement of account filed by the plaintiff and have denied any liability on the basis of the said statement of account Ex.PW1/6. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 have denied that there existed defendant no.1 firm or that the defendant nos. 2 and 3 ever did any business on credit/loan or commission basis with the plaintiff. In the affidavits it is also stated that when the purchasing was made from