This second appeal filed against the concurrent findings entered by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Perumbavoor in O.S.No.146/2009, followed by the judgment of the Additional District Court, North Paravur in A.S.No.149/2010 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law as formulated in the memorandum of appeal:

"(A) Have not the courts below erred substantially in relying on Exts.A8 to A11 account books produced 3 years after filing the plaint, ignoring the mandate contained in Order VII Rules 14, 17 and 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(C) Will the orders in I.A.No.2207 of 2004 whittle down the rigour of Order VII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its application?

(E) Has not the lower appellate court gone wrong in relying on the entries in Ext.A8 day book as primary evidence substantiating delivery of the goods covered by Exts.A1 and A4?"

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the question referred to in ground (A) comes under the question referred to in ground (C) and therefore, the question referred to in ground (A) need not separately be considered. It further follows that the question referred to in ground (D), which reads: "Were not the courts below bound to draw adverse inference for non-production of the best evidence - in the form of signed copies of the consignment notes in proof of delivery of the goods covered by Exts.A1 and A4 bills and the relative orders placed by the appellant for supply of goods - on the facts and in the circumstances of the case?" also follows the question referred in ground (C).

3. On hearing either side, this Court is of the view that the following questions of law arose for consideration in this second appeal:

(1) Whether the order in I.A. No. 2207/2004 passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Perumbavoor whittle down the rigour of Order VII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its application?

(2) Whether the non-production of the signed copies of consignments notes in proof of delivery of goods covered by Exts.A1 and A4 bills and the relevant orders placed by the appellant for supply of goods, has resulted in want of best evidence?

(3) Has not the lower appellate court gone wrong in relying on the entries in Ext.A8 day book as primary evidence to substantiate delivery of the goods covered by Exts.A1 and A4?

4. The plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, is a proprietary concern represented by its sole proprietor and evidently the suit is one filed under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the plaintiff is that he used to supply rubber planks to various suppliers including the appellant. According to the plaintiff, he supplied rubber planks to the appellant through Ext.A12 bill dated 03.10.1998, Ext.A13 bill dated 21.10.1998, Ext.A1 bill dated 29.10.1998, Ext.A4 bill dated 31.10.1998, Ext.A14 bill dated 16.11.1998, Ext.A15(a) bill dated 20.01.1999, and Ext.A16 (a) bill dated 18.03.1999, for a total amount of 2,31,828/-. The appellant used to make payments in instalments and through five instalments he paid a total amount of 1,45,000/- out of the total amount of 2,31,828/- and therefore, the respondent is entitled to recover the balance amount of 86,828/- with interest, from the appellant. Over and above it, it was also pleaded that due to the non filing of 'C' Form, unnecessarily a liability to the tune of 25,603/- had to be incurred by the respondent and therefore, the appellant is bound to pay the said amount also to the respondent. At the relief portion of the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid total balance amount.

5. The defendant contended that only 5 lorry loads of rubber planks were delivered to him and he has disputed the delivery of materials covered by Exts.A1 and A4 bills. He has admitted the delivery of materials covered by Exts.A12, A13, A14, A15(a) and A16(a) bills. Over and above it, he contended that there was short supply of 8