The court reinforced that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof in recovery suits, and the defendant's failure to produce evidence does not liberate the plaintiff from proving its case.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. This is defendant’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2013, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010, passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, vide which the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff-firm M/s Prem Chand Krishan Lal filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,34,967/- with future interest @ 1.5% per month against the defendant Baljeet Singh. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff-firm was running the business of commission agent at Grain Market, Cheeka and, therefore, used to advance money to its customers. The defendant Baljeet Singh was a customer of the plaintiff-firm since July, 2004 and had borrowed various amounts, the details of which were given in the plaint. In 2004, the defendant sold his crops to the plaintiff-firm and received a sum of Rs.67,494.85. Account books used to be maintained and Bahi entries used to be executed by the plaintiff-firm whenever some amount was taken by the defendant. It was claimed that after adjusting the amount due towards crops etc., a sum of Rs.2,34,967/- was due to the plaintiff-firm with interest upto 31.03.2006.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendant. Certain preliminary objections as regards maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action, estoppel etc. were raised. It was averred that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands. The case set up by the defendant was that the defendant had been selling his food-grains through the plaintiff-firm and part payments used to be made to the defendant. While making the said part payments, thumb- impressions/signatures of the defendant used to be obtained by the plaintiff on the bahis. It was denied that any advance had ever been taken from the plaintiff. A stand was taken that the bahi entries, if any, showing such amount outstanding against the defendant were false and not binding on the rights of the defendant. It was claimed that infact, the plaintiff-firm had not settled the account of the defendant. On merits as well, a similar stand was taken.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

i). Whether the plaintiff firm is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,34,967/- along-with interest as alleged in the plaint? OPP

ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

iii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD

v) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands if so what effect ? OPD

vi) Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts from the court ? OPD

vii) Relief.

6. The plaintiff examined two witnesses namely Krishan Kumar as PW1 and Swaran Singh as PW2 and also produced on record two documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. On the other hand, the defendant did not lead any evidence and its evidence was, therefore, closed by Court orders.

7. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the relevant record had not been produced. The Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit primarily on the ground that no evidence had been led by the defendant to rebut the oral evidence led by the plaintiff. Cognizance was also