The burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side, and failure to discharge this burden can lead to adverse inferences against that party.

VINOD GOEL, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.12.2016 passed by the court of Additional District Judge-II, North West, District Rohini Courts, Delhi (in short ‘learned ADJ’) by which his Civil Suit No. 76092/2016 against the respondents/defendants was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 12,13,200/- against the respondents/defendants on account of arrears of outstanding amount for supply of material i.e. Ready Mix Concrete (in short ‘RMC’). It is claimed that the appellant/plaintiff is one of the partners of the firm M/s Enpeecon which is engaged in the business of supply of RMC. The appellant/plaintiff is authorised by the other partners to sign, verify and file the suit against the respondents/defendants and depose before the Court on behalf of the Firm by Authority Letter dated 25.05.2012. It is further alleged by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint that the respondents/defendants were having business dealings with them and they used to supply RMC to the respondents/defendants on cash/ credit basis from time to time as and when the order was placed upon them. The respondents/defendants have been making payment on the basis of the running account being maintained by the appellant/plaintiff in due course of its business.

3. It is further alleged by the appellant/plaintiff that they had supplied RMC to the respondents/defendants vide different invoices from time to time to the satisfaction of the respondents/defendants. The respondents/defendants lastly made the payment on 15.12.2009 and thereafter they stopped making payment to the appellant/plaintiff. It is claimed that as per the Customer Ledger Account for the period from 1.04.2010 to 16.07.2010, a sum of Rs. 12,13,200/- has been outstanding and due against the respondents/defendants. They have prepared the statement of account in regular course of their business. It is claimed that the respondents/defendants are liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the outstanding amount till the date of payment. The appellant/plaintiff through their counsel also served the respondents/defendants with a legal notice dated 18.04.2012 by speed post/registered AD.

4. In its written statement, it is inter-alia pleaded by the respondents/defendants that the appellant/plaintiff has not disclosed the name and address of the partners in the firm M/s Enpeecon and the plaint has not been signed and verified as per the requirement of law. The appellant/plaintiff being a partner of the firm has no locus standi to file the suit on behalf of the firm in his individual capacity. It is pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff has not alleged if their firm is registered one as they have not filed the registration certificate of the partnership firm on record. It is pleaded that the respondents/defendants used to reside and work for gain at Chennai and they have no office in Delhi and no cause of action or part of cause of action arose in Delhi. It is further pleaded that the respondents/defendants were making the payment to the appellant/plaintiff immediately after receipt of the goods at the spot through their representatives.

5. In its para-wise reply, the respondents/defendants have admitted contents of para no. 2 of the plaint wherein the appellant/plaintiff has alleged that the respondents/defendants were having business dealings with them and they used to supply RMC to the respondents/ defendants on cash/credit basis from time to time as and when the order was placed upon them by the respondents/defendants. It is pleaded that the respondents/defendants were making payment of the bills at the spot immediately after the receipt of the goods. The respondents/defendants have also admitted the contents of para no. 4 of the plaint wherein it is pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that the goods were supplied to the entire satisfact