THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This is an appeal filed by the appellant – defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 05.12.2005 passed in O.S.No.14 of 2002 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that it was a registered firm by name M/s.Saraswathi Saw Mills and conducting its business in manufacturing a variety of machinery packing material. Pursuant to the orders placed by the defendant between 10.06.1998 to 12.07.1999, it has supplied material worth Rs.7,37,620/-, as per the requirements of the defendant and as per the respective purchase orders and invoices. But the defendant failed to make any payments within 30 days and that the defendant has also agreed that if any delay in payment occurs, he shall pay an interest of 18% per annum from the date of invoice, since the transaction is a commercial one. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 31.12.2001 and the defendant has issued a reply notice confirming the outstanding dues as Rs.7,37,619.20 as on 31.03.2001 and apologized for the delay in payment by giving replies on 05.12.2001, 11.01.2002 and also 04.01.2002 but has not paid any amounts. It is his case that the defendant never denied its liability at any point of time. Thus, the plaintiff claimed a principal amount of Rs.7,37,620/- and interest @ 18% per annum as per the invoice dates through the suit.

4. The defendant has filed its written statement through its Assistant General Manager denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable under Order 37 Rule 11 of CPC and has further contended that all the bills pertaining to the suit transactions are of the year 1998, as such the suit transaction is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. The defendant has further denied the supply of material under the alleged bills shown in the plaint and also the alleged outstanding amounts to be paid with interest @18% per annum.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial.

“1) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim amount to the plaintiff?

2) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

3) Whether the defendant is liable to pay interest if so at what rate?

4) To what relief?”

6. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A67, while the defendant got examined DW1 but no documents have been marked. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.11,12,903/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant.

7. Heard the submissions of Ms.Mercy Vijaya representing Sri P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. The learned appellant counsel has submitted that the rate of interest awarded by the trial Court is very high but has admitted that the transaction is a commercial one. She further argued that the suit itself is not maintainable as it is filed under Order 37 Rule 11 of CPC as it does not pertain to any bill of exchange or a promissory note. She further contended that the suit is barred by limitation as the transactions pertain to 1998 and that all the transactions are individual in nature and thus, cannot be treated as a single transaction. Therefore, prayed to allow his appeal.

9. The respondent counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the appellant having received the material supplied by them has failed to pay the amounts till date and that t