IMPORTANT POINT
Admissions made by the defendant in the written statement can affirm the plaintiff's claim, rendering substantial questions of law irrelevant.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 80 of 2014 dated 25.01.2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge Court, Erode confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 230 of 2010 dated 19.10.2012 on the file of II Additional Sub Judge Court, Erode and to allow this Second Appeal.

1. The unsuccessful defendant before the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,93,742/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The said claim arises out of business transactions viz. sale of jaggery balls with the plaintiff between 27.08.2006 and 17.08.2007. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 5,91,320/- as on 17.08.2007. However, the defendant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in part payment. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation for the reason that the payment was stopped by the drawer himself on 06.08.2007. Since the defendant has failed to honor even the part payment of total amount due, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovering the entire due from the defendant viz. Rs. 5,91,320/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, from 18.08.2007 to 18.06.2010, totalling in all Rs. 9,93,742/-

4. The defendant filed a written statement stating that suit is not filed within the period of limitation and therefore, was liable to be dismissed. However, in the written statement at Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, the defendant has stated as follows:

“9. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of defendant that defendant was in relation with business dealing with the plaintiff from 27.8.2006 to 17.8.2007 but during that period, plaintiff did not supply the quality goods as per order placed by defendant and plaintiff used to supply low quality of goods. That defendant always used to make complaint to plaintiff on phone and plaintiff at that time request the defendant to sell grocery gur as per the running price in the market.

10. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of defendant that at the time of settlement of accounts plaintiff deputed his manager mehetaji munim to defendant's business place at Navagam and that time the accounts were settled in consultations with plaintiff on phone for Rs. 5,91,380/- with plaintiff's mehetaji Mr. P. Murugesan S/o Palaniappa Mudaliya, Resident of 295, Channamuthu Street-3, Erode-638 011, Tamil Nadu State. Defendant at that time not having sufficient fund to pay the above amount. Therefore defendant in consultation with plaintiff agreed to sell defendant's two shops bearing No. 4 & 5 situated at Gokul Nagar, Kholdwad, Kamrej Char Rasta, Tal. Kamrej, District, Surat, Gujarat State for the above mentioned amount and accordingly Sathakhat i.e. Agreement of sale executed by defendant's wife Smt. Kamlaben Laxmilal in favour of plaintiff's mahetaji on necessary Stamp Paper and defendant also signed the same as witness and executant.”

5. The trial Court decreed the suit finding that the suit claim was not barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the defendant.

6. As against the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, the defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal. On 16.02.2021, the above Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(a) Whether the plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proof cast on him to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt?

(b) Whether the plaintiff proved his case as required in Sec.34 of the Evidence Act?

(c) Whether the Courts below right in decreeing the suit without perusing the account books namely the Ledger and Day book in a suit on accounts?

(d) W