J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The defendant in O.S.No.502 of 2006, a suit for recovery of money against goods supplied is on appeal, challenging the said decree. The said suit was laid by the respondent claiming a money decree for a sum of Rs.32,93,802/- with interest thereon at 12% from 16.08.2004 to 22.09.2006. The value of the suit was Rs.41,24,938.03/-.

2. The gist of the case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The plaintiff is a dealer of fertilizers and pesticides and the defendant is a manufacturer of French Fries. These two entities got in to an understanding for encouraging the farmers to cultivate a particular variety of potatoes of their choice to enable them to make French Fries and export them to various purchasers abroad. In order to make it convenient for the farmers, the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a arrangement where the plaintiff will supply fertilizers and pesticides and the defendant would supply the seeds. The defendant would procure the potatoes from the farmers, after deducting the value of the fertilizers and pesticides supplied by the plaintiff and the seeds supplied by itself the defendant would pay the remaining cost to the farmers. Since the defendant did not pay the entire value of the fertilizers and pesticides supplied by the plaintiff to the agriculturists as identified by the defendant, the plaintiff has come up with the suit, claiming that the defendant is liable to make payment of the value of the goods supplied.

3. The defence is as follows:

While admitting the arrangement as pleaded by the plaintiff, the defendant would contend that since there was a crop loss, the parties met on 07.11.2005 and the dispute was resolved. The manner of resolution of the dispute was recorded in the form of Minutes of the meeting on 07.11.2005 and as per the said Minutes, the defendant is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and nothing more. The defendant also contended that the farmers are also necessary parties. The trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

1.Whether the amount of Rs.41,24,938.03/- claimed by the plaintiff? 2.Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

3.To what other relief?

4. At trial, while P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined on the side of the plaintiff, D.W.1 was examined on the side of the defendant; Ex.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the defendant. The trial Court rejected the contentions of the defendant that the bone of contention was resolved by the parties in the meeting held on 07-11-2005 and the said Minutes recorded in the meeting would operate as a 'final agreement and binding settlement'. It accepted the contentions of the plaintiff that the resolution recorded in the meeting dated 07.11.2005 was only an interim arrangement and the same cannot be treated as a 'final determination of the amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff'. The trial Court also relied upon Ex.A3 / debit notes that were pressed into service by the plaintiff. On such findings, the trial Court decreed the suit. Hence this appeal.

5. We heard Mr. H.Karthik Seshadri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.V.Pravin Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Mr.Karthik Seshadri, learned counsel for the appellant would invite us to the Minutes of the meeting dated 07.11.2005, which is marked as Ex.A6 and the evidence in cross examination of P.W.1, who contended that the Minutes of the meeting dated 07.11.2005 amounts to a complete resolution of the monetary dispute between the two parties. He would also draw our attention to Clause Nos.2 to 8 of the minutes dated 07.11.2005, which read as follows:

“2. Due to various factors and vagaries of monsoon the yield was not up to the expected level.

3. Total potato harvested is about 716 Tons, out of which those quantity which was as per size specified was used by the GFL for manufacturing of Frozen