[2025:RJ-JP:1003] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 115/2003 Sanwat Ram Saini son of Shri Bodu Ram Saini, Resident of Nanuwali Babari, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu ----Appellant Versus Firm Rajendra Prasad and Con. Through Rajendra Prasad son of Shri Dwarka Prasad Resident of Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Yashwardhan Tolani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 08/01/2025 This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khetri (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 14/98 whereby the trial Court decreed the respondent-plaintiff's (for short ‘the plaintiff’s) suit for recovery of money. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 65,000/- along with interest of Rs. 19,055.50/- against the defendant of amount of Rs.300/- towards sending legal notice stating therein that the defendant was running an oil mill, so the plaintiff wanted to purchase mustard oil so he gave Rs. 65,000/- to the defendant on 10.11.1995, as an advance of 151 Tins of mustard oil but defendant had not supplied a single tin. On 24.06.1996, the defendant wrote an agreement on the [2025:RJ-JP:1003] (2 of 4) [CFA-115/2003] plaintiff's firm's letter pad to the effect that he would pay the said amount along with interest @ 10% per annum but he had not paid the same. Plaintiff sent a registered notice dated 25.07.1998 to the defendant but he had not replied. So, the present suit was filed. Defendant had filed the written statement and denied to take any amount from the plaintiff and had also denied that he had written the agreement. So he prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k izfroknh us fnukad 10-11-95 dks oknh ls 65000@& :i;s vfxze ljlks fVu ux 151 ds isVs udn izkIr dj oknh dks 151 ljlks ds rsy ds fVu 15 fnu esa nsus dk ok;nk fd;k Fkk ftlds isVs izfroknh us u rks oknh dks ljlks ds fVu fn;s vkSj u gh mDr jde okfil ykSVk;h \ 2- vk;k oknh }kjk izfroknh ls rdktk djus izfroknh us fnukad 24-6-96 dks oknh ds gd esa viuh dye ls ,d bdjkjukek rgjhj dj xokgku ds gLrk{kj djok fy;s \ 3- vk;k oknh] izfroknh ls bdjkjukes ds vuqlkj 10 izfr”kr C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 4- vk;k fookfnr fy[kkoV lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gksus ls nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS \ 5- vk;k oknh QeZ jktsUnz izlkn ,.M dEiuh dks orZeku nkok dk vk/kkj fookn iSnk ugha gqvk blfy;s nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS \ 6- vuqrks’k \ To prove its case, plaintiff adduced the evidence of PW-1 Rajendra Prasad, PW-2 Gulabchand, PW-3 Mahaveer Prasad and PW-4 Kanaram and got exhibited some documents. To prove its case, defendant adduced the evidence of himself as DW-1, DW-2 Niranjan Saini, DW-3 Moolchand. [2025:RJ-JP:1003] (3 of 4) [CFA-115/2003] The trial Court after hearing both the parties decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the trial Court had committed an error in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of fake document. Learned counsel also submits that agreement (Ex.1) is inadmissible in evidence because it was insufficiently stamped. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the plaintiff failed to prove that plaintiff had ever ordered for purchase mustard oil. There are no entry which shows that defendant had ever received order for supply of 151 tins of mustard oil. So, the judgment dated 27.01.2003 passed by the trial Court be set aside. None has put in appearance for the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned judgment. Plaintiff by way of evidence proved the agreement (Ex.1). The trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff had compared the handwriting as well as to admitted signature of the defendant and came to the conclusion that the handwriting as well as signature of the defendant are similar to other documents. From the agreement (Ex.1), it was explicitly clear that defendant had taken Rs. 65,000/- to supply 151 tin of mustard oil. Despite the notice of plaintiff, defendant had not supplied the mustard oil nor gave any reply despite execution of the agreement (Ex.1) for paying Rs. 65,000/- along with interest at the rate of [2025:RJ-JP:1003] (4 of 4) [CFA-115/2003] 10% per annum. So, in my considered opinion trial court had not committed any error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, the present appeal filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Avinash Guleriya/153