placed orders for pet bottles in various sizes and capacities. The defendant would do business through credit and for the period 2015 – 2017, as per the accounts maintained by the plaintiff, in the regular course of business, the defendant was liable to pay Rs.11,49,886/-. The plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice on 21.07.2018 and despite the same, the defendant has not come forward to make any payment. Hence, the suit.

The Written statement in brief:

The transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant are admitted.

However, the allegation that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.11,49,886/- towards credit purchase made by the defendant is denied. The statement of account produced by the plaintiff does not reflect true facts. The defendant also contends that the plaintiff abruptly stopped placing orders to the defendant, resulting in heavy losses being suffered by the defendant and the plaintiff only owes a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the defendant. It is also contened that the plaintiff received plastic scrap worth Rs.25,000/- from the defendant and the said amount has also not been paid by the plaintiff. It is also contended by the defendant that he has paid Rs.40,000/- during the course of business and the same has not been given credit to by the plaintiff. The defendant contends that if all these amounts are adjusted to the claim of the plaintiff, then nothing will be due. The claim for interest at 18% is also alleged to be exorbitant and unconscionable.

4.Issues framed by the trial Court:

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief as claimed as per the statement of accounts?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as claimed in the suit?

3.To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?”

5.Trial:

At trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 and on the side of the defendant, he examined himself as D.W.1 and exhibited Ex.B1 to Ex.B9.

6.The decision of the trial Court:

The trial Court found that the plaintiff has failed to produce accounts to substantiate his claim and the statement of account and consequently proceeded to dismiss the suit.

7.Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant:

Mr.C.Prasannan, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that when the defendant had pleaded set off, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to even lead evidence and the trial Court ought to have called upon the defendant to enter the witness box first. Without doing so, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial Court has committed a patent error in dismissing the suit, disbelieving the statement of account relied on by the plaintiff, which was virtually admitted by the defendant, even in the written statement. He would further state that the trial Court has also drawn adverse inference against the plaintiff for non-production of the income tax records. He would further state that the various invoices based on which the suit claim has been laid are all accounted and find place in the income tax returns and in view of the fact that the trial Court has non-suited the plaintiff mainly on this ground, the plaintiff has taken out an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in CMP.No.9854 of 2023 to produce the income returns to substantiate that the claims made in the suit are true and genuine transactions. He would further state that when the defendant has not disputed the amounts claimed as being incorrect or that the invoices are untrue, then the onus was only on the defendant to establish the defence pleaded in the written statement.

8.Taking me through the oral evidence, learned counsel for the appellant would also contend that the defendant has not denied receipt of goods and when all the invoices have been filed in Exhibit A3 series, the trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit claim. He would also request the court to accept the additional evidence filed in C