Proof of outstanding liability failed where incomplete accounts could not establish the exact recoverable balance.

Proof of supply and subsisting liability was not established with sufficient certainty for recovery. Although the invoices and delivery challans were proved and the defendant did not produce cogent material to disprove the transactions, the statement of account was incomplete and did not reflect later payments. Entries in books of account were relevant but could not, by themselves, fasten liability without supporting proof of the transactions and the complete payment history. The plaintiff therefore failed to prove the exact outstanding amount and was not entitled to the claimed recovery, resulting in dismissal of the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff had proved the supply of goods and the subsisting outstanding liability so as to justify a decree for recovery.

Analysis: The recovery claim rested on invoices, delivery challans and a statement of account. The evidence showed that the invoices and challans were proved, and the defendant did not adduce cogent material to disprove the transactions or the supply of goods. However, the statement of account was incomplete and did not reflect later payments, including amounts paid after the date covered by the accounts. Entries in books of account are relevant, but they cannot by themselves fasten liability without supporting proof of the transaction and the complete payment history. In these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish the exact outstanding amount with sufficient certainty.

Conclusion: The plaintiff did not prove entitlement to the claimed recovery amount. The dismissal of the suit was .

---