The central legal point established is the importance of considering the evidence of the Defendants and granting them an opportunity to adduce their evidence before reaching a decision.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment/order dated 30th November, 2016 by which the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff was decreed in the following terms:-

“(15) In view of my findings on the various issues above, the plaintiff is held entitled to the principal amount of Rs.2,78,651/- with interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount and costs of the suit.”

2. A suit for recovery was filed by the Plaintiff M/s J.P. Textiles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) against two Defendants, namely, Salguti Industries Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant no.1”) and Sh. Prabhu Dass, Manager, Marketing of Defendant no.1 (hereinafter Defendant no. 2). The transaction relates to supply of cotton yarn. According to the Plaintiff, the supplies were duly made but there is an outstanding payment of principal amount of Rs. 2,78,651/- which was not made by the Defendants. Accordingly, a suit for recovery was filed for both the principal amount and interest thereon.

3. In the written statement, the case of the Defendants was that the material supplied by the Plaintiff was defective and accordingly a debit note was issued by them to the Plaintiff. Further, it is the case of Defendants that they incurred a loss of over Euros 20,537 as the exported goods were rejected by Valman SPA who was the buyer. The Defendants submit that they have also filed an FIR in respect of the transaction being FIR No. 115/2016, PS, Chikkadapally, Distt. Hyderabad City under Section 406, 420, 506, 120B IPC. Counsel for the Defendants submits that a suit has also filed against the Plaintiff. However, details of the same have not been disclosed.

4. The following issues were framed in the suit on 7th July, 2014:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 4,74,454/-as prayed for ? (OPP)

2. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes,for what period and at what rate ? (OPP)

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts ? (OPD)

4. Whether the present suit is without cause of action ? (OPD)

5. Relief”

5. After the issues were framed, the Plaintiff’s evidence was led on 12th November, 2014. The Defendants’ witness i.e. Mr. Prabhu Dass filed his affidavit initially on 4th September, 2015 and filed another affidavit on 18th April, 2016. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the second affidavit was actually filed on 7th October, 2016. The Court repeatedly notes on 4th September, 2015 that though the affidavit of DW-2 is filed, no affidavit of DW-1 is filed. A perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court reveals that the Trial Court failed to notice that the witness appearing on behalf of the Defendants was actually the Manager, Marketing of Defendant No. 1 Company who was also impleaded as Defendant no. 2. The Defendants made a statement on 18th March, 2016 itself that they only wished to examine DW-2 and no one else. Mediation was attempted, but the same failed. On 1st September, 2016 the following order was passed by the Trial Court:-

“There is no list of witnesses filed on behalf of the defendants. The affidavit-in-evidence of DW2, the defendant no. 2 is filed. But the affidavit-in-evidence of DWl is not filed till date nor the DWs are present for examination on the pretext that the defendants are still in the process of negotiations.

On inquiries, it is revealed that the offers and counter offers of the parties are not acceptable to each other. The defendants are directed to appear in person to disclose about the viability of any negotiations.

The affidavit-in-evidence of DW1, be filed within 03 days by supplying advance copy to the opposite party/counsel at bar, before filing it in the court. Last opportunity is given to the defendants for DE.”

6. Unfortunately, the Trial Court adjourned the matter for filing of affidavit of Defendant no.1 despite the statement made by the Defendants that Mr. Prab