the trial Court dismissed the suit treating Ex.A1 – delivery challan-cum-proforma invoice and Ex.A2 – Invoice No.27 as concocted ones and observing that since the defendant was a stranger, the burden was more on the plaintiff to prove the same, however the plaintiff failed to prove his case.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
Rajender Kumar Gupta .. Appellant
F1 Fashion Corner .. Respondent
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2011 delivered in A.S. No. 54 of 2008 by IX Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.),
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 6139 of 2005 on the file of the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking to recover an amount of Rs.31,620/- with interest and costs from the defendant. The plaintiff pleaded that he was dealing in ready-made garments, so also the defendant. The defendant had purchased shirts from him under delivery challan and invoice Nos.6 and 27 on 07.02.2005 worth Rs.34,008/-. Payment was to be made within 30 days from the date of invoice lest an interest at the rate of 18% p.a. would be chargeable. The defendant failed to pay the invoice amount in spite of repeated requests. After paying a paltry amount of Rs.5,000/- in the month of June, 2005, the defendant denied the transaction and also the other material averments in the plaint. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court has framed necessary issues. Both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence, considering the same, the trial Court dismissed the suit treating Ex.A1 – delivery challan-cum-proforma invoice and Ex.A2 – Invoice No.27 as concocted ones and observing that since the defendant was a stranger, the burden was more on the plaintiff to prove the same, however the plaintiff failed to prove his case. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed an appeal suit in A.S. No. 58 of 2008 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.),
City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The lower appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the impugned judgment and decree as well as other material on record, came to the same conclusion as that of the trial Court and thereby concurred therewith and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the judgment dated 30.05.2011 of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has inter alia raised the self-same contentions as he had raised before both the Courts below. His main contention is that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and material on record in proper perspective, and thereby, came to an erroneous conclusion in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal suit. Hence, he prays to set aside the judgment under appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree and other material on record, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below do no appear to have committed any error or irregularity in dismissing the suit as well the appeal suit, as such, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. Therefore, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment under appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.
B.N.RAO NALLA, J