1 2025:CGHC:23910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 48 of 2020 1 - Arun Khandelwal S/o Shri Narayan Khandelwal Aged About 40 Years Director Of Arunodya Agencies, Nagar Niagam, Complex, R/o Anupam Nagar, Ward No. 19, P. S. Basantpur, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1 - Adhinram Sinha S/o Hirdayram Sinha Aged About 50 Years Propritor Shiv Shakti Construction Company, R/o Ward No. 16, Sangam Chowk, Tulsipur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/defendant ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar. Chandravanshi Order on Board 13-06-2025 1. The appellant/ plaintiff has preferred first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment & decree dated 16.10.2019 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 7-B /2014 (Arun Khandelwal v. Adheen Ram Sinha) whereby civil suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,84,495.97/- has been dismissed. 2 [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the plaint filed before the trial Court] 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs.1,84,495.97/- from the defendant stating inter alia that the plaintiff Arun Khandelwal runs a business under the name & style of 'Arunodaya Agency', who used to sell Cement, brush, paint, oil, paint, water proof paint, roller, rubber paint and paint colour, etc. on wholesale and retail basis. The defendant, who is Building Contractor, had purchased various aforesaid building / painting materials from the plaintiff in between 01.04.2007 to 02.09.2010. He paid most of the amount towards purchased articles, but till date i.e. 02.09.2010, Rs.1,84,495.97/- was outstanding against him, which was not paid by defendant, despite repeated verbal and written request, hence, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of aforesaid amount. 3. The defendant has filed written statement stating inter alia that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit in time by making a false receipt of Rs.5,700/- from a person namely Deepak Sinha on 22.01.2014, whereas neither the defendant has paid Rs.5,700/- to the plaintiff nor has given any receipt thereof. The defendant has denied all the allegations levelled against him by plaintiff and sought dismissal of the civil suit. 4. The trial Court, on the basis of pleading of the parties, framed as many as four issues, recorded evidence of the parties and after considering the same, dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff holding therein that he has failed to prove his claim. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff would submit that in between 1.4.2007 to 2.9.2010, defendant had purchased various articles 3 from the Agency / shop of plaintiff and most of the amount was paid by him in cash and through cheque also, but he did not pay Rs.1,84,495.97/- to the plaintiff and said amount is outstanding against him, which has also been proved by plaintiff in his deposition, and the same has been supported by witnesses also. He further submits that without considering those evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the civil suit. He further submits that though last transaction was made by defendant on 2.9.2010 and suit was filed on 4.3.2014, but Rs.5,700/- was paid by defendant on 22.1.2014 through one Deepak Sinha, as such, the suit is well within limitation, but learned trial Court without considering aforesaid facts, has held that suit is barred by limitation, as such, the appeal may be allowed and decree may be passed in favour of plaintiff. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / defendant would support the impugned judgment & decree and pray for dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record of trial Court. 8. As per pleading and deposition of plaintiff, he is a Director of firm named and styled as “Arunodaya Agency”, but no document has been filed by him to substantiate aforesaid fact, except verbal statement of plaintiff and his witnesses. 9. If plaintiff was Director of said firm namely “Arunodaya Agency” and that Firm used to sell building material and building paints with related articles in wholesale and retail basis, then to manage such huge transaction, plaintiff ought to have maintained ledger etc., particularly, in respect of sale & purchase of the articles and bill register pertaining to the customers, who 4 purchased aforesaid articles in credit, but the plaintiff has not filed any such document to prove his statement that defendant had purchased said articles from his shop and the amount of Rs.1,84,495.97/- was outstanding against the plaintiff. Without any account book (khata bahi), ledger account, etc, only on the basis of verbal statement of plaintiff – Arun Khandelwal (PW-1) and his witnesses namely Vikash Khandelwal (PW-2), Mukesh Mishra (PW-3) , it cannot be held proved that defendant had purchased said articles from the shop / agency of plaintiff in credit and Rs.1,84,495.97/- is outstanding amount yet to be paid, therefore, I do no find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. According to the plaintiff, last transaction was made on 2.9.2010 and the instant suit has been filed on 4.3.2014. Such recovery suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years under Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but instant civil suit has not been filed within a period of three years from the date of last transaction i.e. 2.9.2010. Though as per plaintiff, the defendant had paid Rs.5,700/- on 22.01.2014 through one Deepak Sinha, but this fact has not been proved by him by adducing cogent evidence and by examining Deepak Sinha, hence, learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff as barred by limitation. Hence, the same is hereby affirmed. 10. Consequently, the first appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.18 11:15:55 +0530 5