2025:CGHC:55745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 187 of 2012 Jasraj S/o Bhairavdan Jain Aged About 55 Years Office Address- Rishabh 85, Aakash Ganga Complex, Thana- Supela, Tah. And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh Pin:490023 ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus Aakash Jain S/o Dhanraj Jain Aged About 25 Years Plot No. 14, Near Sachdeva College, Dushehra Maidan, Shanti Nagar, Thana- Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg C.G. ... Respondent /Defendant (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Ms Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Shri PR Patankar, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 14.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.08.2012, passed by the learned First Additional Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No.3B of 2011, whereby, the Civil Suit for recovery of amount of Rs.93,822/- has been dismissed. 2. Appellant herein was plaintiff before the learned trial Court. He filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.93,822/-, with the pleading in the plaint that he is proprietor of M/s Rishabh Shop, and deals with electronic goods and mobile phones of various companies. He is also distributor of Micro Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.12.17 12:24:41 +0530 Fa 187 of 2012 2 Max Mobile phone. Defendant is well acquainted with the plaintiff, and they have good relation with each other since the time of defendant’s father, as both of them belong to the same community. In view of their acquaintance with each other, plaintiff appointed the defendant as his agent for selling mobile phones on commission. The defendant used to take mobile phones on credit, and after sale of the same, cost of mobile phones was deposited from time to time. However, at the time of filing of the suit, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.93,822/-. When the plaintiff asked him to pay the remaining balance amount, defendant stopped coming to his shop, and then, plaintiff served legal notice to the defendant on 05.02.2010, which was served upon him but he neither replied it nor paid the outstanding amount. Thereafter, suit has been filed by the plaintiff. 3. Defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff, and filed his written statement, denying the plaint averments, and pleaded that plaintiff was in need of some money for his business, and the defendant advanced loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to son of the plaintiff, namely, Rishab. Only to avoid his liability to repay the same, present suit has been filed. There is no outstanding amount against the defendant, rather, there is outstanding amount of Rs.3,00,000/- against the plaintiff, for which the defendant is entitled. Whatever mobiles purchased by the defendant on credit from his shop, he already paid the entire sale consideration of the said mobile phones, and there is no balance amount towards the said transaction. There is no cause of action arise in favour of the plaintiff, and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings made by the parties, learned trail Court has framed the following issues: Fa 187 of 2012 3 okniz’u fu"d"kZ 1& D;k oknh }kjk izfroknh dks eksckbZy fodz; djus gsrq viuk izfrfuf/k fu;qDr fd;k x;k \ gk¡ 2& D;k izfroknh }kjk oknh ls m/kkj esa eksckbZy izkIr dj fodz; i’pkr~ mldk Hkqxrku le; ij oknh dks fd;k tkrk jgk \ gk¡ 3& D;k oknh ds i{k esa izfroknh ls 93]822@& :i;s cdk;k ‘’ks"k gS \ lkfcr ugha 4& D;k oknh ds i{k esa izfroknh ls fy;s tkus ;ksX; dksbZ jde cdk;k ‘’ks"k ugha gS \ ugha gS ugha gS 5& D;k izfroknh }kjk oknh dks cdk;k jde 93]822@&:i;s dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gS \ cdk;k gh ugha gS 6&oknh izfroknh ls 93]822@&:i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ugha 7& lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ da-14 ds vuqlkj 5. In support of the claim, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1, PW2- Kuntal Jail, and PW3-Kamlesh Yadav, and relied upon the documents Ex.P1 to P4, which are the estimate of mobile phones, Ex.P5 and P6-Ledger account, Ex.P7-Certificate of proprietorship of the plaintiff, Ex.P8-legal demand notice, and Ex.P9- acknowledgment. 6. The defendant has examined himself as DW1, and relied upon the document Ex.D1, which is copy of the complaint filed against Rishab, son of the plaintiff, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act proceeding. 7. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence produced by the parties, held that although the plaintiff and defendant were engaged in the Fa 187 of 2012 4 business of mobile phones, however, plaintiff has failed to prove that there was outstanding amount of Rs.93,822/- against the defendant, therefore, he is not entitled for its recovery, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that learned trial court has erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, as there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the parties were involved in the business transaction with each other, and under their routine course of business, defendant used to take mobile phones on credit from the shop of the plaintiff, and after its sale, he used to deposit the consideration from time to time. The defendant has admitted in his evidence that he was in business relation with the plaintiff, and from the document Ex.P5, which is the ledger account, the purchase and deposit details have been mentioned, and from the said account, total outstanding amount comes to Rs.93,882/- against the defendant. He would also submit that defendant has admitted his signature on the document Ex.P5, and Ex.P6, however, the learned trial Court failed to consider the outstanding amount against the defendant. He would submit that defendant has failed to prove that he deposited the entire amount of mobile phone transaction, which he purchased from the shop of the appellant/plaintiff, and only to avoid his liability, he made statement that he provided loan of Rs.3 lakhs to the son of the plaintiff. The impugned judgment, and decree suffer from perversity, and erroneous appreciation of evidence, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside, and decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff. Fa 187 of 2012 5 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant would support the impugned judgment, and would submit that from the document Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, it has not been established as to when the defendant had taken the mobile phones from the shop of the plaintiff, and what would be its actual price. He denied the purchase of mobile phones from the shop of plaintiff, and the burden to prove the same is upon the plaintiff, by producing relevant details, and vouchers of his shop, through which the purchase of mobile phones was alleged. Documents with respect to estimate of phones Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 have not been issued in name of defendant but the same were prepared afterwards, which were self served statements that defendant purchased said mobile phones. No particulars, or details of mobile phones were mentioned in the above said documents. Defendant is not denying his business relation with the plaintiff but he denies the liability of Rs.93,822/- upon him. The account book has not been proved in accordance with law, and the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which does not suffer from any illegality, or perversity, and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the trial Court. 11. The point for determination in the present appeal is to whether the plaintiff is able to prove the transaction between the parties by producing the documents- Ex.P1 to P4. These documents have been proved by the plaintiff (PW1) himself. He stated in his evidence that these documents are copy of challan by which the defendant purchased the mobile phone from his shop. In Fa 187 of 2012 6 his cross-examination, PW1, the plaintiff has stated that he has not filed any document in the case to show that the said shop i.e., ‘Rishab Shop’ is owned by him. Rishab is name of his son. He also admitted that he has not filed any document that he is the proprietor of the said shop. He voluntarily stated that he is owner of the shop, and it is a registered firm. He further admitted that in the documents Ex.P1 to P4, neither his name nor his signature is there, but he prepared the said documents on his own. He further admitted that there is no document with respect to the fact that he appointed the defendant as his agent. He also admitted that there is no written agreement between him and the defendant. He further admitted that in the documents Ex.P1 to P4, the word ‘challan’ or ‘bill’ has not been mentioned. He voluntarily stated that estimate, and challan, are the synonyms, and the estimate is not a quotation, and they treated the said documents as ‘challan’. He also admitted that no date has been mentioned on the documents Ex.P1 to P4, and two dates have been mentioned in single bill, and order, and estimate can be obtained by anyone, easily. He further admitted that in the document Ex.P5, there is no mention of any outstanding amount but details of the amount deposited by the defendant. He further admitted that in the document Ex.P6, there is no mention as to what are the goods supplied to the defendant, and what amount has been deposited against it. His name is not mentioned against Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. Plaintiff also admitted that in the said diary, his name is not there but it belongs to him. Plaintiff also admitted that he has not explained as to for which goods/phone, what amount has been deposited. He further admitted that outstanding amount of Rs.93,822/- is not mentioned in ledger account. He voluntarily stated that the outstanding amount is mentioned at the backside of the challan, Ex,P1. He also admitted that in the details of outstanding amount, neither his Fa 187 of 2012 7 signature, nor the signature of defendant is there. Defendant had lastly paid the amount on 11.10.2009, and thereafter, Rs.93,822/- was outstanding against him, despite any entry in the ledger with respect to the said outstanding amount. Plaintiff denied the loan of Rs.3 lakhs in name of his son, from the defendant, and has shown his ignorance about any legal proceeding with respect to dishonor of the cheque. Regarding the exhibits, dealership certificates Ex.P7, Ex.P8, and Ex.P9, they have been marked repeatedly with same number. 12. PW2-Kuntal Jain is son of the plaintiff. In chief examination, he stated about the outstanding amount of Rs.93,822/- against the defendant, however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know as to whether in the month of October, or prior to it, defendant has made any payment, or not. He also did not know as to how many occasions, defendant has paid the amount. He voluntarily stated that he deposited an amount with his father. His father has informed him that Rs.93,822/- is the outstanding amount against the defendant. 13. PW3 Kamlesh Yadav is Computer Operator in the Kushal Investment, which is owned by the plaintiff. He also knows defendant- Akash Jain. As per the information given by the plaintiff, there was an outstanding amount of Rs..93,822/- against the defendant. This witness is also a hearsay witness, and does not have any personal knowledge about the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant. In para-4 of his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know as to what are the transactions between the plaintiff and defendant. Fa 187 of 2012 8 14. From perusal of the documents Ex.P1 to P4, it transpires that it is only an estimate which has been prepared at one instance, containing two dates on each leaf of them. It was issued in name of Akash Jain, however, there is no signature of Akash Jain to say that it was actually received by him. Though he might have taken the goods from the shop of plaintiff, but there is no document with respect to the account, or ledger through which the said mobile phones were sold or given to the defendant. As per the evidence of the plaintiff, it can be obtained by anyone, from anywhere, easily. 15. In view of the evidence led by the plaintiff, and the documents Ex.P1 to P4, it cannot be considered to be true transaction between the parties with respect to sale of mobile phone. Although the defendant admitted the relation between them and business transaction, however, when the plaintiff has claimed the outstanding amount towards business transaction with the defendant, he ought to have produced sufficient evidence to show that these are the goods which have been sold or given to the defendant and these are the payments made by him towards goods given to him. 16. From the document Ex.P5, it transpires that it is an account of payment made by one Akash Jain, which was in between 27.09.2009 to 11.10.2009. From the document Ex.P6, it is also not clear that it was ledger of the shop of the plaintiff, as there is no mention of any name of the shop, though there is signature of the defendant in the entries made in it. The plaintiff could not explain as to why two dates in one leaf of the challan/bill have been mentioned. Normal practice in regular course of business would be that when a customer purchased the goods from the shop, a challan/bill is to be prepared, and it has been signed by the customer, acknowledging the same, that he has taken the Fa 187 of 2012 9 goods, and when he again visited to shop to take any goods, another challan in the same manner is required to be prepared. With each transaction, there should be a separate challan or bill. However, it is not in the present case, but it appears that documents Ex.P1-P4 have been prepared subsequently, after the alleged transaction. From the evidence led by the plaintiff, it is not clear that whether any such transaction is actually made between the parties as per the document Ex.P1 to P4. There is no signature of the defendant in those documents Ex.P1 to P4. Even signature of the plaintiff is not there. From the admission made by the plaintiff in his evidence, it is very difficult for this Court to hold that there was any transaction as shown in the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, which imposes liability upon the defendant for recovery of Rs.93,822/-. Even the plaintiff has not given any details in the plaint, or has made any pleading as to on which date mobile phones have been purchased by the defendant, and there is no consolidated statement with respect to total outstanding amount of Rs.93,822/-, which is allegedly due against the defendant. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would refer to the admission made by the defendant in his cross-examination that when he had gone to the house of the plaintiff to pay the entire outstanding amount, the plaintiff stated that the diary is at his shop, and therefore, he could not sign on the said diary. Defendant admitted in his evidence that he repeatedly had gone to the shop of the plaintiff for payment of entire dues, but he has not signed on any document. Since the plaintiff could not establish the total transaction between him, and the defendant, and it is the defence taken by the defendant that whatever goods he purchased from the shop of the plaintiff, he paid the entire dues to him, and the payment done by the defendant also reflects from Fa 187 of 2012 10 document Ex.P5. Therefore, the admission made by the defendant in his evidence would not be benefited the plaintiff in support of his case. However, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case against the defendant by producing sufficient evidence in which he failed to discharge his burden to prove the same. 18. After having meticulous examination, the evidence, and the law related to the issue, learned trial Court has come into conclusion that plaintiff could not establish the transaction between him, and the defendant; and the outstanding amount of Rs.93,822/- against the defendant, and has dismissed the suit, in which this Court does not find any perversity, or illegality which warrants interference in the impugned judgment, and decree. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 20. Parties to bear their own costs, and decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma