THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.304 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in O.S.No.29 of 2014, dated

31.12.2019.

2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

3.1 The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,08,912/- from the defendant together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs.

3.2 Plaintiff and defendant are known to each other for the last several years and they were in the business. The defendant during the course of business transaction has purchased food grains, pulses from the plaintiff, to that effect the defendant fell due an amount of Rs.10,08,912/- as per the accounts settled on 06.08.2011. Plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the amount on the date of settlement of the account but the defendant has requested for time thereby Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed on 19.08.2011. As per MOU dated 19.08.2011 defendant shall start making payments from Deepavali (November, 2011) onwards and clear the same by May 2012. In spite of the demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not pay the amount. Plaintiff has got issued a legal notice on 10.03.2014 to defendant calling him to make the payments within fifteen days on receipt of the notice failing which he will take recourse under law. Defendant has received the notice on 12.03.2014 and he got issued a legal notice on 13.03.2014 claiming damages of Rs.38,61,600/- on various counts, prayed to decree the suit.

4. Defendant filed his written statement, denied the allegations levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint and further contented that false cases are registered against him and his family members under SC and ST (POA) Act, due to which they were forced to stay away from their house, taking advantage of the same the henchmen of the plaintiff committed theft in his house, stolen 42 thulas of gold ornaments. Thereby his wife has lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and his son and police have registered a case in Crime No.421 of 2013, which is under investigation. Defendant and his son were compelled to approach this Court and filed Crl.P.No.15604 of 2013, obtained stay on the false complaint lodged against them. Defendant and his family members will put to harassment and he suffered loss in the business, hardship, mental agony and his reputation was spoiled in the society. The business of the defendant was running well and was earning a minimum profit of Rs.6 to 7 Lakhs per annum. Due to the illegal acts of the plaintiff he suffered a loss of Rs.6,00,000/- per annum and his customers are due to pay lakhs of rupees to him but they defaulted in paying the same. As per clause-3 of the MOU dated 19.08.2011 entered between the parties the plaintiff specifically agreed to pay the damages to the defendant in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions. The plaintiff with a malicious intention violated the terms and conditions of the said MOU dated 19.08.2011 and committed breach of contract. The claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred and there is no legally enforceable debt against the defendant, prayed to dismiss the same.

5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.10,08,912-00 from the defendant along with interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization?

2) To what relief?

6. Plaintiff was examined as PW1, got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Defendant was examined as DW1, also examined DW2 (H.Sathyanarayana) and DW3 (R.Ramulu), no documents were marked on his side.

7. The trial Court after going through the evidence of the parties and the documents thereon has decreed the s