ORAL JUDGMENT

This regular first appeal is filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.4151/2008 by the 20th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city wherein the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,41,332/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. came to be dismissed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The appellant / plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.4151/2008 seeking prayer for a decree for a sum of Rs.2,41,332/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost of the suit. It was averred that the plaintiff is the proprietor and dealer of all electrical, domestic and industrial needs, carrying on his business at No.21, Venkateshwara Complex, BVK Iyengar Road Cross, A.M.Lane, Bengaluru and the defendant is the one of the regular customers who used to place purchase orders for electrical items on credit basis. It was further averred that the defendant had purchased electrical items from 25.11.2003 to 26.04.2008 worth Rs.1,91,326/- out of which, the defendant had paid Rs.13,876/- keeping a sum of Rs.1,77,450/- as balance which was unpaid. It was also averred that the plaintiff had maintained regular account of the defendant which reflected various transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant from 25.11.2003 to 26.04.2008. It was pleaded that though several requests were made and reminders were sent, the defendant failed to pay the balance amount which compelled the plaintiff to issue legal notice on 24.05.2007 calling upon the defendant to pay the balance amount. The transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant being a commercial transaction, the defendant is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date the amount becomes due till its realization. It was further pleaded that the defendant sent an untenable reply on

25.07.2007 which compelled the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of money.

4. The defendant, on service of notice entered appearance and filed written statement. The defendant has averred that there was no Managing Director in the defendant - Hospital and the suit was filed describing wrong defendant in the cause title is liable to be rejected. The defendant denied that they were the regular customers of the plaintiff, had purchased electrical items on credit basis from time to time and had maintained a running account. The claim of the plaintiff that the defendant had purchased items from 25.11.2003 to 26.04.2008 worth Rs.1,91,326/-, out of which Rs.13,876/- was paid and there was balance of Rs.1,77,450/-, was denied by the defendant. It was averred that the plaintiff did not maintain correct account and claim of the plaintiff is baseless. They admitted the receipt of legal notice and stated that a legally tenable reply was sent to the plaintiff with regard to the dues. It was further averred that the claim of the plaintiff was absolutely false, untenable and without any basis. It was also averred that there was no written contract between the plaintiff and defendant and hence, claim of interest at the rate of

18% p.a. was wholly unsustainable in law and the defendant was not liable to pay the same. It was pleaded that the documents produced by the plaintiff along with plaint and the amount shown as due from the defendant does not relate to the defendant - hospital and the plaintiff did not produce the invoices and purchase orders to prove that the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim. It was further pleaded that the defendant - hospital used to purchase the items required only on purchase orders and invoices and the present claim of the plaintiff is without any basis and neither purchase orders nor invoices were produced. It was also pleaded that the defendant - hospital and the transaction made by it were in conformity with the provision of law and the defendant produced