The court clarified that failure by a defendant to contest evidence effectively establishes the plaintiff's claim in a money recovery suit.

1. This first appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vapi, in the Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2016 (Old No.72 of 2014), whereby the suit for recovery of money came to be dismissed.

2. ' The facts emerging from the records are that the Special Civil Suit No.62 of 2016 (Old No.72 of 2014) was instituted by the plaintiff (a proprietory concern) for recovery of an amount of Rs.29,36,211/- (Rupees Twenty - Nine Lakh Thirty - Six Thousand Two Hundred Eleven Only) from the respondent - original defendant with 15% interest. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the plaintiff through his Power of Attorney Holder.

3. ' It is the case of the plaintiff that there was a commercial transaction of sale and purchase between the plaintiff and the respondent - defendant. The respondent - defendant purchased papers from the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.42,31,167/- (Rupees Forty - Two Lakh Thirty - One Thousand One Hundred Sixty - Seven Only), out of which only Rs.12,64,950/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Sixty - Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Only) was paid. Thus, for the recovery of the balance amount of Rs.29,36,211/- (Rupees Twenty - Nine Lakh Thirty - Six Thousand Two Hundred Eleven Only), the aforesaid suit was instituted before the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vapi.
3.1 Despite the service of summons, the respondent - defendant thought fit not to appear before the trial court. Therefore, the suit was ordered to be proceeded ex parte.
3.2 Having regard to the pleadings in the plaint, the trial court framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants has purchased the Ambesize 15 of Rs.42,31,167/- from the plaintiff?
(2) whether the plaintiff proves that, the Rs.29,36,211/- is legal and recoverable debt from the Defendants?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get interest? If yes, at what rate?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get reliefs as prayed?
(5) what order and decree?
3.3 The trial court answered all the aforesaid issues in the negative and dismissed the suit mainly on the following grounds :
(I) The plaintiff failed to prove service of a valid demand notice to the defendant before the institution of the suit. The cover containing the demand notice returned unserved with an endorsement ' Door Locked - .
(II) No independent witness has been examined so as to prove the contents and genuineness of the invoices and the delivery challans.
(III) Out of the total dues of Rs.42,31,167/- (Rupees Forty - Two Lakh Thirty - One Thousand One Hundred Sixty - Seven Only), the plaintiff failed to specify how Rs.12,64,950/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Sixty - Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Only) was paid to him and in connection with which particular invoice. No cogent evidence to establish and prove that Rs.29,36,211/- (Rupees Twenty - Nine Lakh Thirty - Six Thousand Two Hundred Eleven Only) is legally recoverable.
(IV) The suit was instituted through the Power of Attorney Holder and in the Examination - inChief, nothing has been said by the Power of Attorney Holder as to how he derived knowledge of the various transactions.

4. ' Therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this Appeal under S.96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 .

5. ' It appears that on 12.12.2019, this Court issued notice to the respondent - defendant, making it returnable on 23.0