2022 (4) TMI 1150 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Supply of material or not - fake and bogus documents - HELD THAT - It is to be seen from the material placed on record and the pleading of the parties whether the plaintiff has supplied the material, despite supply of material no payment has been made. It is well settled legal position, that the genuineness of the document has to be proved by the plaintiff who relies upon the document and thereafter it is for the defendants to dislodge the credibility of the document as fake, sham and bogus document - In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the work order was issued in his favour and genuineness of the challan has also not been proved. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to examine the witnesses who has delivered the goods and thereafter the concerning officer has put his signature on the challan, no witnesses was examined by the plaintiff in his support. From bare perusal of receipt from Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28, it is clear that the plaintiff has not put signature of any employee of concerned department who has received the material and even no cross-examination was done with regard to supply of material through Ex P-8 to Ex.P-28. Even from examining the evidence of the plaintiff it is not clear to whom the plaintiff has supplied the material and who has signed the receipt - It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the signature of person who has signed the challan by adopting the course by the person who signed or wrote a document; by calling a person in whose presence the documents are signed or written; by calling handwriting expert; by calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written; by comparing in Court, the disputed signature or handwriting with some admitted signatures or writing; by proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it. These steps have not been taken by the plaintiff to prove the challan, therefore, it cannot be held that material was supplied by the plaintiff as per the challan. It is well settled legal position is that initial onus is always upon the plaintiff to prove the fact and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, then onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. In this case nothing has been discharged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not proved by adducing cogent evidence on record that he has supplied the material and thereafter payment was not made. Considering the fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has supplied the material despite this, the learned trial Court has held that plaintiff has supplied material to the defendants and he is entitled to receive ₹ 60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 2004 till the payment is actual made is perverse, contrary to record and deserves to be set aside by this Court - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff supplied the material to the defendants.
2. Whether the payment for the supplied material was made by the defendants.
3. Whether the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff was justified.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff supplied the material to the defendants.

The plaintiff contended that they supplied goods worth ?61,464/- to the defendants and received two cheques dated 14.07.2002 for ?40,000/- and ?20,000/- as payment. The cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff presented several documents, including a notice under Section 80 CPC, postal receipt, acknowledgment, letters from the Block Education Officer (BEO), and receipts of goods to support their claim. However, the defendants denied these allegations, stating that no material was supplied and no cheques were issued by them.

The court observed that the plaintiff failed to prove the issuance of a work order in their favor and the genuineness of the challans. The plaintiff did not examine witnesses who delivered the goods or those who signed the challans. The court noted that the receipts (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28) lacked signatures from any employee of the concerned department, making it unclear who received the material. The plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that no specific order for supply of material valued at ?61,464/- was given. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish that the material was supplied as claimed.

Issue 2: Whether the payment for the supplied material was made by the defendants.

The plaintiff argued that despite supplying the material, the defendants did not make the payment, leading to the dishonor of the cheques. The defendants, however, contended that no material was supplied, and thus, no payment was due. The court highlighted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the material was supplied and received by the department. The absence of a written supply order and the lack of credible evidence regarding the receipt of goods weakened the plaintiff’s case. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not discharge the initial burden of proof to establish that the material was supplied and payment was due.

Issue 3: Whether the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff was justified.

The trial court had directed the defendants to pay ?60,000/- along with 6% interest per annum to the plaintiff from the date of filing the suit till actual payment. The appellate court, however, found this judgment to be perverse and contrary to the record. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove the supply of material through cogent evidence. The trial court’s reliance on the challans (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28) was misplaced as the plaintiff did not establish the authenticity of these documents. The appellate court referenced Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which requires proof of signature and handwriting of the person alleged to have signed or written the document. The plaintiff did not follow the prescribed methods to prove the signatures on the challans.

The court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgments in Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh and Rangammal vs. Kuppuswami, to underline that the initial onus is always on the plaintiff to prove their case. The plaintiff failed to discharge this onus, and thus, the trial court's judgment was deemed perverse and set aside.

Conclusion:

The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove the supply of material and the entitlement to payment. The appeal filed by the defendants was allowed, and a decree was drawn up accordingly.