The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant must provide sufficient and credible evidence to substantiate their claim, and the burden of proof lies with the appellant to establish the liability of the respondent.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Lucknow Medical Agencies (hereinafter ‘the appellant’) has preferred the present appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to challenge the legality and correctness of a Judgment dated 21.10.2014 of learned Additional District Judge in RCA No. 2/2013 tilted M/S Lucknow Medical Agencies vs. Raj Kumar (Second) whereby findings of the Trial Court in the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2013 in Suit No. 247/2006 were confirmed. The appeal is contested by the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. It is relevant to note that the appellant had filed a suit against the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 1,56,020.54 claiming that the respondent did not pay the said amount after he left the job with the appellant on 12.12.1995. It was averred that the respondent was employed with the appellant since 1980 and was working as a Billing Assistant. Apart from the said employment, the respondent used to supply medicines to various chemists on his own from the appellant’s firm to get commission. The medicines were supplied to the respondent on credit basis and the respondent used to deposit the proceeds with the appellant firm. It was further averred that the respondent used to maintain two types of accounts; one in his own name and the other in the name of M/S Eureka Chemists. A sum of Rs. 86,240.31 was due and recoverable from the respondent as on 31.03.1996 which he failed to pay and left the services on 12.12.1995 without any information.

3. The said suit was contested by the respondent and he denied his liability to pay any such amount. He further denied to have supplied medicines to the chemists to earn commission. Both the appellant and the respondent adduced their evidence. Finally, by the judgment dated 21.01.2013, the said suit was dismissed. The appeal which challenged the legality of the said judgment also resulted in its dismissal. Aggrieved by the said orders, the instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed before this Court.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant primarily is that the findings of the Trial Court that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be sustained as the suit was filed on 10.12.1998. It was erroneously observed by the courts below that it was filed on 14.12.1998. Counsel further urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly. The respondent in his deposition before the Labour Court had categorically admitted that he used to get medicines from the appellant to supply it to various chemists. Due to certain difficulties, the said statement could not be produced before the court at the relevant time. Apparently, the respondent has taken inconsistent and contradictory stands and the burden was heavily upon him to prove that the payment of the medicines received from the appellant was duly accounted for.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the appeal does not disclose any substantial question of law to be entertained by this Court. It was further urged that the said statement before the Labour Court was not put to the respondent in the cross-examination to confront.

6. So far as the limitation is concerned, this Court is of the view that the suit filed by the appellant was within limitation. Perusal of the record reveals that the suit was filed by the appellant on 10.12.1998 (first page of the plaint contains stamp of the learned District Judge, Delhi, dated 10.12.1998 whereby the suit was transferred to the court of Sh. S.N. Dhingra, the then learned Additional District Judge). Erroneously, it was noticed by the courts below that the suit was filed on 12.12.1998. Since the suit was filed within three years on 10.12.1998, the findings of the courts below regarding limitation cannot be sustained.

7. Regarding the appellant’s claim to recover the amount of Rs. 1,56,020.54, from the respondents, this Court is of the view that there was no sufficient and credible evidence to substant