Judgment : Sathish Ninan, J. This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for money. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. 2. The plaintiff is a company registered in Netherlands. It is engaged in the business of trading in seafood. Defendants 1 and 2 are companies engaged in the processing and export of seafood. The first defendant is the major shareholder of the second defendant Company. The third defendant is a statutory body which regulates marine export activities in India, and is a formal party. Defendants 1 and 2 are hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”. 3. It is the plaintiff’s case that the plaintiff acted as a Commission Agent in respect of four purchase contracts viz. Exts.A2, A32, A45 and A76 between the plaintiff and the defendants, for supply of frozen tuna to “CONSERVAS ISABEL DE GALICIA, S.L.”, a Company in Spain, the defendants being the sellers. As per the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants the plaintiff was entitled for 5% commission on the sale price. The commission was payable in lieu of the plaintiff having secured business for the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that, though the purchase contracts were executed by the defendants, the commission payable to the plaintiff was not. The suit is laid for realisation of the same. 4. The defendants filed a joint written statement. They denied of having any agreement with the plaintiff and also the plaintiff's involvement in its business transactions with the company at Spain. The genuineness of the purchase orders was denied. 5. The trial court held that the signatory to the plaint failed to prove his competency to represent the plaintiff. It was also held that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC ). On the merits, it was held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of any agreement with the defendants. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. 6. We have heard Sri.K.A.Salil Narayanan, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, Sri.A.T.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 and Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, the learned counsel for the third respondent. 7. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are :- (i) Is the signatory to the plaint is competent to represent the plaintiff ? (ii) Is the suit bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC ? 7. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are :- (i) Is the signatory to the plaint is competent to represent the plaintiff ? (ii) Is the suit bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC ? (iii) Has the plaintiff established an agreement with the defendants entitling him for 5% commission ? (iv) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference ? 8. The plaintiff company is represented by its Managing Director. The plaint is signed by him under the seal of the Company. Ext.A1 is the English translation of the extract of trade register of the Chamber of Commerce, Netherlands. The same evidences that the signatory to the plaint is the sole shareholder and Director of the plaintiff Company. The document is attested at the Indian Embassy at Hague. We do not find any reason to doubt the genuineness of the document. Ext.A24 is an invoice which is admittedly issued by the defendant to the plaintiff Company. The defendants do not have a case that the transaction with the plaintiff Company was through someone else other than the present signatory of the plaintiff. We find that there is sufficient material to find that the signatory to the plaint is competent to represent the plaintiff Company. The finding of the trial court to the contrary is liable to be set aside and we do so. Point (i) is answered accordingly. 9. The third defendant is a statutory authority. Section 80 CPC mandates issuance of a notice preceding the suit only against the Government. The third defendant is not entitled for a notice in terms of . The finding of the trial court to the contrary is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. Point (ii) is held in favour of the plaintiff. 10. Now coming to the merits of the plaint claim, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was the commission agent for the export effected by the defendants to the company in Spain and that there existed a contract with the defendants for payment of commission. According to the plaintiff, there were four purchase contracts with the defendants viz., Exts.A2, A32, A45 and A76. Pursuant to such purchase orders, shipment invoices were issued. According to the plaintiff, though commission invoices were raised in respect of each shipment invoices, the same remain unpaid. 11. According to the plaintiff, there were four purchase contracts with the defendants viz., Exts.A2, A32, A45 and A76. Pursuant to such purchase orders, shipment invoices were issued. According to the plaintiff, though commission invoices were raised in respect of each shipment invoices, the same remain unpaid. 11. Exts.A2, A32, A45 and A76 purchase contracts are photostat copies. They were held to be inadmissible in evidence. According to the plaintiff, in respect of Ext.A2 purchase contract there were ten shipment invoices, with regard to Ext.A32 purchase contract there were four shipment invoices, with regard to Ext.A45 purchase contract there were ten shipment invoices, and with regard to Ext.A76 purchase contract there were twenty shipment invoices. Though the purchase contracts are disputed, the fact that there were such shipments by defendants to their purchaser at Spain is not disputed by the defendants. The contention is that, the plaintiff is a total stranger to the transaction. 12. The disputed purchase contracts are apparently the only documents connecting the plaintiff and the defendants. The shipment invoices mention only the names of the exporter and the consignee. Ext.X series are the customs invoices/shipping bills. Those documents were summoned from the Customs Department. It is prepared as mandated under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 . The customs invoices correspond to the shipment invoices produced by the plaintiff. The customs invoices make mention of the details of the exporter (defendants) and the consignee (the company at Spain). In the customs invoices/shipping bills one of the entries is “commission” . The amount of commission is also indicated therein. Section 50 of the Customs Act reads thus:- “ 50. Entry of goods for exportation. —(1) The exporter of any goods shall make entry thereof by presenting electronically on the customs automated system to the proper officer in the case of goods to be exported in a vessel or aircraft, a shipping bill, and in the case of goods to be exported by land, a bill of export in such form and manner as may be prescribed : Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, in cases where it is not feasible to make entry by presenting electronically on the customs automated system, allow an entry to be presented in any other manner. (2) The exporter of any goods, while presenting a shipping bill or bill of export, shall make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of its contents. (3) The exporter who presents a shipping bill or bill of export under this section shall ensure the following, namely:— (a) the accuracy and completeness of the information given therein; (b) the authenticity and validity of any document supporting it; and (c) compliance with the restriction or prohibition, if any, relating to the goods under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force.” As is evident therefrom, in the customs invoices/shipping bills, the exporter vouches to the truth of its contents. The corresponding bills of lading and customs invoices/shipping bills, in relation to the shipment invoices under the four purchase contracts, are shown hereunder in a tabular form for easy reference :- Though the plaintiff has produced the commission invoices claimed to have been raised by them, the issuance of the same are disputed by the defendants. 13. As was noticed above, in the customs invoices/shipping bills, one of the entries is “commission”. The amount of commission is also indicated therein. To whom the commission mentioned in Ext.X series were paid/payable by the defendant, is not brought out. As DW1, the defendants case is that the transactions with the company at Spain was a direct deal with no agents or intermediaries. No documents indicating the same are produced. As regards the entry in Ext.X series under the head “commission”, the explanation of DW1 is that it represents the unforeseen shortage in the quantity shipped. But for his ipse dixit, there is no material to support such claim. Prima facie the explanation is far from satisfactory, it being not in accord with common parlance and commercial practice. 14. Ext.A24 is an invoice issued by the defendants to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that, it is the only transaction with the plaintiff and that it was a direct sale. However, the contents of Ext.A24 reveals that the final destination of the cargo and the port of discharge is “VIGO-SPAIN” and not Netherlands. So also, as per Ext.X7, which is the customs invoice/shipping bill corresponding to Ext.A24, the consignee is “CONSERVAS ISABEL DE GALICIA S.L., VIGO SPAIN”. However, the contents of Ext.A24 reveals that the final destination of the cargo and the port of discharge is “VIGO-SPAIN” and not Netherlands. So also, as per Ext.X7, which is the customs invoice/shipping bill corresponding to Ext.A24, the consignee is “CONSERVAS ISABEL DE GALICIA S.L., VIGO SPAIN”. Though in Ext.A24 invoice the consignee is shown as the plaintiff, Ext.X7 shows the consignee as the very same purchaser in all the invoices. According to the plaintiff, Ext.A24 is one among the shipment invoices under Ext.A2 purchase contract. Therefore, (i) the claim of the defendant that Ext.A24 corresponding to Ext.X7 customs invoice/shipping bill represents an independent transaction with the plaintiffs, does not appear to be correct, and (ii) Ext.A24 along with Ext.X7 suggests the involvement of the plaintiff in the dealings between the defendants and the company at Spain. The defendants have not disclosed the commission agent mentioned in their customs invoices. 15. Though the plaintiff claims that there were e-mail correspondences with the defendant between the parties, the same are not produced. In the plaint it is stated that the correspondence and contract between the parties were through fax and email. The defendants in their written statement while admitting such form of correspondences contended that it was only for immediate communication and that the original documents are forwarded by courier subsequently. 16. The plaint gives the details of each shipments. If the plaintiff was a total stranger to the transactions the plaintiff would not have been able to reach at all those details with regard to the shipment invoices, Bill of Lading, customs invoices etc. relating to the consignments. The circumstances noted above makes the claim of the plaintiff probable. We are unable to concur with the trial court in having dismissed the suit solely holding that the purchase contracts Exts.A2, 32, 45 and 76 are inadmissible and remain unproved. 17. In the lights of the discussions as above, we deem it appropriate to give a further opportunity to both sides to produce all the relevant records/materials relating to the consignments in question. Such a course is necessary for a proper disposal of the case. With regard to the admissibility of documents, the trial court has referred to Section 65B of the Evidence Act . Such a course is necessary for a proper disposal of the case. With regard to the admissibility of documents, the trial court has referred to Section 65B of the Evidence Act . The said question is also left open to be considered having due regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [ (2020) 7 SCC 1 ] and Sonu alia Amar v. State of Haryana [ (2017) 8 SCC 570 ] . As held by the Apex Court in Kundan Lal Rallaram v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay ( AIR 1961 SC 1316 ) and Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors. ( AIR 1968 SC 1413 ), a party in possession of the best evidence is not entitled to withhold the same relying upon the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. We clarify that we are not to be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside. The suit is remanded back to the trial court for disposal de novo after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence. Parties to appear before the trial court on 15.06.2026. The court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded to the appellant.