K. HARILAL, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.90/1999 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were defendants in the above suit.

2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal can be briefly summarised as follows (parties are referred to as in the trial court judgment) :-

3. The plaintiff is a business concern engaged in the wholesale business of boiled rice etc. The first defendant is a Partnership firm and the second defendant is the Managing Partner of the firm. They are customers of the plaintiff in rice business and the defendants owed Rs.1,95,730.55 towards credit purchase of rice as per proper books of accounts maintained by the plaintiff in the name of the first defendant as on 07.06.1996. Despite, demands at times, the defendants did not pay the amount. Hence the suit was filed for realisation of an amount of Rs.1,95,730.55 with interest from the defendants.

4. In written statement, the defendants denied the allegation that the defendants owed a sum of Rs.1,95,730.55 to the plaintiff and contended that no amount is due or payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. So no demand was ever made to them for payment . The allegation in the plaint is vague, indefinite and the plaintiff did not have a cause of action to institute the suit. The documents produced along with the plaint are not admissible in evidence and the suit has been filed without bona fides. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Ext.A1 to A8 were marked and PWs 1 and 2 were examined by the plaintiff. Neither any oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the defendants. The trial court raised four issues and considered the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. However, the court below took a view that since the original ledgers were produced late, those documents cannot be received in evidence as per Order 7 Rule 18, unless leave is granted by the court. The duplicate of the receipt books also could not be taken in evidence for the same reason. The court below found that there is no sufficient evidence to hold that the defendants were connected with Ext.A1 and A2 documents and the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred on various grounds.

6. We heard Sri. Dinesh .R. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. S. Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the defendants.

7. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below ought to have found that there was no specific denial against the plaint averment that there were business transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants and the only plea is that no amount is due to the plaintiff. The learned counsel argued that the trial court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the total denial of the defendants and from the fact that the defendant did not give any evidence either oral or documentary. He did not reply to Ext.A4 lawyer notice. The court below erred in not looking into the original ledger books and the original receipt books which were produced before the court in trial on the sole reason that those documents ought to have been produced along with the plaint. The trial court erroneously found that the suit is barred by limitation, the counsel submitted.

8. Per contra, the counsel for the defendants submitted that there is no sufficient evidence to hold that the defendants were connected with Exts.A1 or A2 documents. Ext.A1 is dated 14.02.1996 and the suit was filed on 19.03.1999. Though the plaintiff has alleged part payment on 07.06.1996 in order to get over the limitation, that payment was neither admitted by the defendants nor successfully proved by the plaintiff. The part payment was not quantified in the pleadings. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation.

9. The learned counsel for the defendants pointed out that the court below rig