Madrasdated High Court · 2025

A.S.No.327 of 2017ORDERThe defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The respondent/ plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2015 before the V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,38,956/- along with interest at the rate of 11% p.a., based on the business transaction and the same was decreed in part by the Trial Court, directing the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.8,68,560/- along with 6% interest p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful defendant has come before this court.2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, there was a commercial transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant from February 2012 to June 2013. The plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant company, based on the orders placed by them from time to time. The defendant, on 25.01.2012, vide order No.NI10005M/135, requested the plaintiff company to supply goods and accordingly, the plaintiff, vide invoices dated 01.02.2012 in invoice Nos.594 (marked as Ex.A4) and 1853 (marked as Ex.A5) had supplied the goods, worth about Rs.1,34,414.51p and Rs.6,32,507.66p, totally a sum of Rs.7,66,922.17p.2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 2017Having received the said goods, the defendant had failed to pay the cost of the goods supplied to them. It is also stated by the plaintiff that, it has been maintaining a running account regarding the goods supplied to the defendant on various dates and as per the said account, the defendant failed to make payments for the goods supplied to them under the above mentioned invoices. As a result of the same, a balance amount of Rs.7,66,922/- was due to the plaintiff by the defendant. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant failed to submit Form 'C' declaration under the relevant Sales Tax Law and hence, the plaintiff was compelled to pay differential sales tax amount of Rs.1,01,638/- together with penal interest of Rs.40,041/- to the tax authorities. On that account, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,679/- to the plaintiff. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that vide e-mail dated 23.09.2013, the defendant was requested to clear the outstanding dues and also requested to submit Form 'C' declaration. Despite several e-mails, there was no reply from the defendant and hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for recovery of money totalling to a sum of Rs.10,38,956/-.3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 20173. The defendant filed a written statement denying the maintenance of any running account regarding the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was the specific case of the defendant company that they paid the amount, due under the invoices, mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, according to the defendant, there was no cause of action for filing the suit and hence, the same was liable to be dismissed. It was also claimed by the defendant that the entire amount due to the plaintiff was paid by them and hence, the payment of partial amount does not arise and therefore, prays for dismissal of the suit.4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.10,38,956/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 11% per annum on Rs.10,38,956/- from the defendant as prayed for?2 . Whether the interest claimed is exorbitant?3 .Whether the cause of action is true?4. Whether the court fee paid is correct?5 . To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for?4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 20175. The Deputy Manager of the plaintiff company was examined as PW1 and another Deputy Manager was examined as PW2. On behalf of the plaintiff, 20 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A20. The Managing partner of the defendant Firm was examined as DW1 and on behalf of the defendant, 3 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.8,68,560/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendant has come before this court.7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Ex.A18, running account produced by the plaintiff was a defective one and hence, the Trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit, based on the particulars found in Ex.A18. The learned counsel also submit that the suit was laid mainly on the ground that the defendant has to pay the amount for the goods supplied under Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. However, as per the statement of account produced by the 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 2017plaintiff under Ex.A18, the defendant paid an excess amount of Rs.6,86,013.76p as on 14.03.2012 and the said fact has not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court.8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submit that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that they paid differential tax to the authorities and hence the decree passed by the Trial Court, on the assumption that the plaintiff had paid differential tax amount to the authorities is unsustainable in law.9. In this appeal, though notice was served on the respondent/ plaintiff and counsel entered appearance initially, on 23.09.2026, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff reported 'no instruction' and recording the same, the Registry was directed to list the appeal suit by printing the name of the respondent. Despite name has been printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff.6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 201710. Based on the pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced before this court, the following point is arising for consideration.1.Whether the plaintiff/ respondent is entitled to a decree for recovery of money, as prayed for?11. As per the plaint averment, the defendant failed to pay the value of the goods, supplied under the invoices, marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. The plaintiff also claimed in the plaint that they were maintaining a running account and as per the same, the defendant has to pay the balance amount. In order to substantiate the plea raised in the plaint, the plaintiff marked the running account maintained by them as Ex.A18. A perusal of the same would establish that two invoices mentioned by the plaintiff in the averment, which were marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 were not at all mentioned in the running account maintained by the plaintiff. When this defect was pointed out to the PW1, he replied as follows. thrhM4 kw;Wk; 5 rk;ge;jg;gl;l fzf;Fg;gl;oaiy ehd; ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ eh';fs; bghJthf bjhif bfhLj;j gpwFjhd; bghUs; rg;is bra;nthk; vd;why; rhpay;y/ mth;fs; ey;y 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 2017Kiwapy; v';fsplk; tpahghuk; bra;J te;jhy; flDf;Fk; bfhLg;nghk;/ 05/11/2012f;F Kd;g[ thrhM18 fzf;fpd;go gpujpthjp epWtdk; U:/22.42.301-? RTGS K:yk; thjp t';fp fzf;fpw;F brYj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ gpujpthjp epWtdk; v';fnshL bra;J te;j tut[ bryt[ fzf;Ffisj; jdpahf guhkhpj;J tUfpnwhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mij v';fshy; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;a Koa[kh vd;why; Koa[k;/From the above evidence of PW1, it is clear that, apart from Ex.A18, the plaintiff were maintaining a separate ledger with regard to the transactions involving with the defendant. Though the PW1 in his evidence has stated that the said ledger can be produced before this court, for the reasons best known to him, the same has not been produced.12. The PW1, during the cross examination, clearly admitted that Ex.A18, running account was not properly maintained and the defects in Ex.A18 can be clarified with reference to the ledger account maintained by them. However, the said ledger account has not been produced before this court. The relevant portion of the PW1 reads as follows.8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 2017eh';fs; ,e;j tHf;if ,d;tha;rpd; mog;gilapy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsdh my;yJ fzf;Fg; g[j;;jfj;jpdog;gilapy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsdh vd;why;. fzf;Fg; ngnul;od; mog;gilapy;jhd; jhf;fy; bra;Js;nshk;/ thrhM18y; 22/05/2013 njjpapy; bfhLf;fg;gl ntz;oa bjhif xd;Wkpy;iy vd;W Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why;. thrhM18 bjsptpy;yhky; cs;sJ/ bjspthd fzf;Fg; ngnul;ilg; ghh;j;jhy; bjspthf brhy;y Koa[k;/From the above evidence of PW1, it is clear that Ex.A18, running account produced by the plaintiff in support of their case was not properly maintained and a separate account ledger book was maintained by the plaintiff in respect of the transactions with the defendant. However, the said account ledger book has not been produced by the plaintiff, which raises a presumption that the plaintiff is withholding the best evidence available with them. Hence, this court is compelled to draw averse inference against the plaintiff under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has committed a serious error in decreeing the suit, based on the improper running account produced by the plaintiff, marked as Ex.A18.9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 201713. As far as the claim made by the plaintiff with regard to the payment of differential sales tax is concerned, the PW1 in his evidence clearly admitted that he has not produced any document to substantiate the plea that the plaintiff was constrained to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,638/- to the tax authorities, due to the default committed by the defendant in producing the Form 'C' Declaraion. He also deposed that the tax payments were made through on-line and if necessary, the same will be produced before this court. The relevant portion of the evidence of PW1 is as follows.eh';fs; tpw;gid thpj;Jiwf;F U:/1.01.638/- brYj;j ntz;Lk; vd;gjw;F ,e;j tHf;fpy; Mtzk; vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mjw;F tl;o U:/40Mapuktuntz;Lk; vd;gjw;F Mjhukhf Mtzk; vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mit midj;Jk; onliney; cs;sd/ ntz;Lk; vd;why; M$h; bra;fpnwd;/Though PW1 had stated so in his evidence, the plaintiff has not produced any document before the court to establish that the default committed by the defendant in not submitting the Form 'C' declaration had compelled plaintiff to pay additional tax to the authorities along with penal interest. In the absence of 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 2017any document to substantiate the said plea, the Trial Court ought not have accepted the plea raised by the plaintiff and directed the defendant to pay the said amount also, merely on the ground that the defendant failed to produce Form 'C' declaration before the plaintiff. The initial burden to prove the plea raised in the plaint is vested on the plaintiff only. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove the plea that they paid additional tax to the authorities, due to the failure of the defendant in submitting the Form 'C' Declaration. In such circumstances, both the claims made by the plaintiff were not proved by satisfactory evidence. In fact, the averments made in the plaint are unsustainable, based on the vital admission made by the PW1. The Trial Court, without taking into consideration of the vital admission of PW1, erroneously decreed the suit in part. Hence, this court finds that the findings reached by the Trial Court are liable to be set aside and the respondent/ plaintiff is not entitled for decree for recovery of money as prayed for. Point No.1 is answered accordingly against the respondent/plaintiff and in favour of the appellant/ defendant.11 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 201714. In view of the discussion made earlier, the appeal stands allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in O.S.No.35 of 215, dated 29.11.2016. The original suit stands dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.17-10-2025Index:Yes/NoInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoMSTToThe V Additional District Judge,Coimbatore.12 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.327 of 2017S.SOUNTHAR J.MSTAS No. 327 of 201717-10-202513 of 13