The burden of proof of whether the suit was filed by a competent person lies with the plaintiffs, and failure to establish this can lead to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. The suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs with the averments that the plaintiffs-Company is private Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. The suit is filed through Mr. Ravish Trehan, Managing Director of the Company. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Company supplied 852 cases of MONTY XXX RUM to the appellants-defendants in the month of March, 2004. The defendants received the supply of the same but only DIGP (CRPF), Doda made payment of Rs.15007/-through a cheque whereas the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 did not make due payment of Rs.3,21,488/-for 814 cases of RUM though even legal notice was issued for liquidating the amount.

2. The defendants appeared through counsel and contested the case of the plaintiffs. The stand taken by the defendants was that the plaintiffs had infact supplied the article to the defendants as pleaded and that the payment was also made to the plaintiff-Company through its authorised Manager Sales, Sh. O.P. Katoch through different receipts. No payment is due to the plaintiffs from the defendants is the stand taken in the written statement. The suit has not been filed by the authorised person is also the objection taken in the written statement.

3. The suit was initially assigned to the court of learned Second Additional District Judge, Jammu. The case was later on transferred to the court of Principal District Judge, Samba vide order dated 23.10.2008 by the said Court in view of the notification issued by the High Court.

4. The original record of the trial court is before the court. The suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the appeal by the defendants.

5. The Court vide order dated 23.01.2008 framed Issues in the suit which read as under:-

“1. Whether the suit has not been filed by a competent person and is so liable to be dismissed? OPD

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

3. Whether Sh. O.P.Katoch was manager sales of plaintiffs concern and was competent to receive the payment on behalf of the plaintiffs concern? OPD

4. If Issue No.3 is proved in affirmative, whether the defendants liquidated the entire outstanding amount on account of receipt of various consignments of monty Rum XXX from plaintiffs concern from time to time through Sh. O.P.Katoch? OPD

5. Relief.”

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the learned trial court did not decide the issues as per the evidence that came on record. The defendants paid the requisite amount for the article purchased by them and evidence on record amply shows the same. The suit was not filed by the proper person and the plaintiffs never appeared in the witness box to prove the case which should have resulted into dismissal of the suit.

7. Mr. L.K.Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents has argued that the alleged payment has been made by the defendants to the person who was not authorised to receive the same. Even the receipts on which the defendants rely upon are not proved by the defendants. The suit has been filed by the authorised person and the attorney holder has appeared as witness in the case which itself shows that the plaintiffs have authorised the competent person to appear on behalf of the plaintiffs and depose in the matter of which he had personal knowledge.

8. It may be mentioned herein that the burden of proof framed by the Court on all the issues was placed upon the defendants.

9. The supply of 482 cases of MONTY XXX RUM by the plaintiff-Company to the defendants is not in dispute. The plaintiffs are entitled to the amount as mentioned in the plaint is the issue which indeed requires consideration by the Court.

10. The court in the first instance takes up Issue No.3 framed in the case for consideration. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that the defendants have not paid the amount due to the plaintiff-Company as projected in the plaint. The defendants averred that the payment has been made to Mr. O.P.Katoc