The present appeal is by the defendant, assailing

the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2018 passed in

O.S No.137/2016 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC-I at Raichur (for short 'the Trial Court'),

decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of

money.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

would be referred to as per their ranking before the

Trial Court.

3

3.

The relevant facts are that, the plaintiff

filed a suit for recovery of money for a sum of

Rs.23,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from

the date of the suit till realization for the sale of cotton

seeds to the defendant contending that the defendant

had purchased the cotton seeds worth Rs.96,33,087/-

on credit basis under different invoices between

04.06.2015 and 09.04.2016 and made part payment

of

Rs.77,02,529/-

on

different

dates

and

the

defendant is still liable for outstanding dues to the

tune of Rs.19,30,558/-, in addition to it Rs.2,88,593/-

being the differential central sales tax and Rs.97,222/-

being the interest on the principle amount totaling to

Rs.23,00,000/-.

4.

The defendant has filed written statement

specifically contending that the plaintiff was fully

aware that the requirement of cotton seeds by the

defendant was for the purpose of manufacturing of oil

4

and oil cake. The quality which was assured by the

plaintiff was not supplied to the defendant and goods

supplied was poor quality seeds and the bill claimed

by the plaintiff is more higher than the market value

and contended that due to the low quality, the

defendant has suffered heavy loss.

5.

The Trial Court, on the basis of the

pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves that,

the

defendant

has

purchased

goods

for

plaintiff

worth

of

Rs.96,33,087/-

and

made

part

payment of Rs.77,02,529/-?

2.

Whether the plaintiff proves that,

the defendant is liable to pay in all

Rs.23,00,000/- as contended in

paragraph No.9 of the plaint?

3.

Whether

the

plaintiff

further

proves that, the defendant is liable

to pay interest @ 24% per annum

as contended?

4.

Whether

the

defendant

proves

that, the goods supplied by the

plaintiff

were

of

substandard

5

quality whereby he has sustained

heavy loss of more than 50%?

5.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

the relief as sought for?

6.

What decree or order?

6.

In order to substantiate their case, the

proprietary of the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1

and got marked Exs.P1 to P25. On the other hand,

though the defendant filed his written statement, did

not enter the witness box to substantiate his case.

7.

The Trial Court, on the basis of the

available evidence on record, partly decreed the suit

of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is entitled to

Rs.21,11,244/- with future interest at the rate of 10%

per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its

realization.

8.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6

9.

Sri. K.A. Kalburgi, learned counsel for the

appellant/defendant would contend that the defendant

could not context the suit due to bonafide reasons, as

when the matter was posted for cross-examination of

the plaintiff, the defendant was ill and as such, he

could not furnish necessary instruction to his counsel

to

cross-examine

PW.1

and

thus,

the

cross-

examination of PW.1 was taken as nil. It is further

contended that the defendant was unwell and could

not lead any evidence on his behalf and the Trial Court

has taken the evidence of defendant as nil and the

Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit of the

plaintiff. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that an opportunity to cross-examine the

plaintiff and to lead evidence would be afforded, as it

is literally an ex-parte decree.

10. Per contra, Sri. Mahaveer Kumar Daftari,

learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would

7

contend that the suit was filed in the year 2016 and

the defendant never came forward to cross-examine

the PW.1 and to lead his evidence, in spite