J U D G M E N T

This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for money.

2. The first defendant is a Company engaged in the manufacture of writing materials. The second defendant is its Manager. The plaintiff was the 'super stockist' and distributor in the State of Kerala, for the writing materials manufactured by the first defendant. The plaintiff commenced business in April 2005, but wound it up in the year 2006 allegedly due to lack of quality and performance of the products of the defendant. When the plaintiff stopped its business, they had stock worth `10 lakhs. In February, 2007, the defendant took back goods worth `3.5 lakhs. The remaining goods worth `6,55,783/- were not taken back. The goods were either defective or poor in quality. It is accordingly that the suit is filed for :- 2 :-

realisation of the value of the goods remaining with the plaintiff along with a prayer for a direction to the defendants to take back the goods.

3. The allegations regarding defect and quality were denied by the defendants. It was pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation.

4. The trial court held the goods supplied to be defective, and poor in quality; that plaintiff is entitled to realise its va