AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (4) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the transactions was maintained and this showed a debit of Rs. 6,20,623.40 ps. Defendant 1 had supplied goods worth Rs. 2,79,965.14 ps. leaving outstanding a balance of Rs. 3,40,658.26 ps. The accounts were gone into and defendants had admitted the above position. In their balance sheet issued on, 13-11-1974, defendants had acknowledged the above liability. Despite demand the dues had not been paid. Hence this suit for recovery of the dues plus interest @ 21% per annum. The acknowledgement brought the suit within limitation. 3. Defendants denied the averments summarised above. Defendant 1 had once purchased goods worth Rs. 14,620.60 ps. and the price had been paid in full. There was no accounting or settlement of accounts. Plaintiff&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intiff entitled to? Rs. 13,413.00 7. Relief and costs? See para 13. REASON 5. P.W. I who is an Accountant of the plaintiff firm with a standing of 26 years has produced the certificate Ex, G. This document establishes the registration of plaintiff firm under the Partnership Act. Issue I has thus to be answered as 'yes'. 6. Having regard to the pleadings it becomes necessary to discuss issue Nos. 2 to 6 -- bar, the factor of limitation -- collectively. The plaintiffs stand is that it had dealings with defendants since 1966 and that in the course thereof, the latter became indebted to it to the extent of Rs. 3,40,658.26 ps. This was so a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with her signature having seen the same on a number of communications received by plaintiff from defendant 1. The position thus is that while plaintiff has examined its Accountant who is conversant with the suit transactions to some extent at least-defendants 2 and 3 have not been examined. The reasons given for the non-examination of defendant 2 do not carry conviction. But even if it be assumed that defendant 2 is physically not in a position to testify, the non-examination of defendant 3 and servants of defendant I gives rise to an adverse inference. What the extent of such inference will be is a different matter. This is the background in which the evidence has to be appraised. 7. P.W. 1's testimony is based upon entries made in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e entries and the bank statements have been tendered by witness in response to a request made by the Advocate for the defendants. That a person cannot be charged with liability on the basis of mere entries in books of accounts is clear from Section 34 of the Evidence Act. That secondary evidence can be adduced only upon proof of the nonavailability of the original, is equally elementary. The invoices tendered by P.W. 1 are not carbon copies and P.W. 1 has not explained how they came to be prepared. But against these shortcomings is the omission of the defendants to come into the witness box. It is not as if they have nothing to explain. If nothing else, P.W. 1's evidence shows that parties had been dealing with each other as far back as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the maker instead of raising hair-splitting technicalities to overcome the insuperable. The only defect in the acknowledgment being meritless, it has to be held that the suit having been filed on 18-10-1975 i.e. within three years of 13-11-1974, is within time. 10. There is another reason why the claim is good in law even if we assume that Ex. D was not executed before the expiry of period of limitation. Section 25(3) Contract Act validates a promise to pay a debt barred by limitation. This, it was argued, is not the stand of the plaintiff and cannot therefore be taken into consideration. The pleadings do not have to reflect legal submissions. They are to incorporate only the material facts. The making of the acknowledgment has been plea....