J U D G M E N T

Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lays challenge to judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.5-S/13 of 2019, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Court No.2, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 153/1 of 2016, titled as M/s Verma Trading Company versus Kiran, whereby suit having been filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 72,385/- alongwith future interest at the rate of 18% per annum, came to be decreed.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed suit for recovery in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Solan, District Solan, H.P., against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), averring therein that the plaintiff being a firm is dealing in the business of trading building material under the name and style of M/s Verma Trading Company, near Gurudwara Saproon, Solan sold Steel/Saria worth Rs. 72,385/- on credit basis to the defendant through bill No.1455, dated 24.08.2013 Ex.PW1/A. As per books maintained by the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 72, 385/- is still outstanding in the name of the defendant. Plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to pay the outstanding amount, but since she did not accede to the request of the plaintiff, plaintiff was compelled to serve a legal notice, dated 30.5.2016 upon the defendant. Notice was duly sent through registered post, but defendant despite having received notice ignored request of the plaintiff on one pretext of other and as such, it was compelled to institute the suit for recovery, as detailed hereinabove.

3. Defendant by way of written statement refuted the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint and denied that the plaintiff firm is dealing in the business of building materials under the name and style of M/s Verma Trading Company. Defendant also denied that she being customer of the plaintiff purchased steel/Saria worth Rs. 72,385/- on credit basis through bill No.1455, dated 24.08.2013. Defendant also claimed that she did not purchase steel/Saria on credit basis and if there is any such type of bill in possession of plaintiff, it is false and forged. While denying the fact that the plaintiff firm supplied the items in accordance with bill and the entry of the sale duly made in the ledger account of the firm, defendant termed such entries in the ledger to be false, fake and forged. Defendant specifically denied that sum of Rs. 72, 385/- is outstanding for the period of 32 months.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties framed following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 72,385/- alongwith interest as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff has no legal cause of action to maintain the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Court? OPD.

6. Relief:-

5. Subsequently, on the basis of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.12.2018, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 72, 385/- against the defendant alongwith pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till its realization. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, defendant filed an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019. In the aforesaid background, defe