The failure to present oneself for cross-examination gives rise to adverse inference, and the evidence of the defendants was considered unreliable.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and Decree dated 18.08.2006 made in A.S. No. 3 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 4402 of 2000 dated 23.01.2004 on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2006 passed in A.S. No. 3 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2004 passed in O.S. No. 4402 of 2000 on the file of the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. The first defendant in O.S.No.4402 of 200 is the appellant in the second appeal.

4. Suit for recovery of money.

5. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that on the basis of the orders received from the third defendant, the plaintiff despatched the textile goods under the Bill Nos.27302 and 27303 dated 06.01.1998 for Rs.27,103/- through the fourth defendant under the Way Bill No.80528603 dated 07.01.1998 and endorsed the bill in favour of the first defendant with the request in writing on 07.01.1998 to collect the amount of Rs.27,103/ from the third defendant and handover the original documents to them for the clearance of the textile goods from the fourth defendant. The first defendant has to collect the amount after the delivery and credit the same in the plaintiff's account lying with the first defendant. Even though the first defendant had accepted the bills and sent it to the second defendant, the plaintiff has not received the said amount. The plaintiff on 28.02.1998 and 18.04.1998 made a request to return the documents if the bills were not cleared and received a letter on 08.05.1998 stating that the second defendant had not received the documents sent by the first defendant. The plaintiff also contacted the fourth defendant and the fourth defendant informed that the goods were delivered to the third defendant after obtaining the original documents on 29.01.1998. Thus, it is clear that the second defendant had colluded with the third defendant and handed over the original documents without receiving the amount and thereby enabled the third defendant to take the delivery of the goods from the fourth defendant. The plaintiff also received a letter from the General Manager, State Bank of India (D&PB) stating that the claim of the plaintiff is under investigation. The plaintiff received a letter dated 16.09.1998 from the first defendant requesting to furnish the duplicate copy of the bill and also the way bill, by letter dated 26.10.1999. the first defendant informed that they have already sent a telegram to the second defendant on 03.03.1998 to know the fate of the bill. The second defendant apprised the non-receipt of the bill by telegram dated 04.03.1998. The first defendant also admitted that they had lodged a complaint to the post master, Kilpauk Post Office on 04.03.1998. The postal authorities replied that they could not confirm the delivery of the registered letter through which the bills had been sent to the second defendant. The plaintiff furnished and forwarded the duplicate copies vide letter dated 11.11.1999 and on 14.02.2000, the plaintiff received a letter form the first defendant returning all the Photostat copies of the bills stating that the payments are not forthcoming. The defendants 1 and 2 had breached the contract and made the plaintiff to incur the loss of the value of the goods. The defendants 1 and 2 are liable to make good the loss of the value of the goods along with interest. The plaintiff sent a legal notice on 22.02.2000, to the first and second defendant, calling upon them to pay the amount with interest. The second defendant sent an evasive reply on 29.02.2000 rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. Hence according to the plaintiff,