TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness of supply of stationary and sports items. Plaintiff Rakesh Gupta is the partner of the firm. As per plaint averments the plaintiff had supplied goods worth of Rs. 61,464/- to defendants. The defendants to satisfy the bill amount has given two cheques dated 14.07.2002 for Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiff presented the cheque on 10.01.2001 for encashment but the said cheque was returned with an endorsement that there was no sufficient funds in the account (Ex.P-2), consequently plaintiff sent information to the defendants regarding dishonour of cheques on 22.01.2001. The plaintiff sent legal notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendant through his counsel on 08.05.2001 for releasing the payment but they did not release the payment. It has been further contended that in pursuance of the notice defendant No. 2 has forwarded memo mentioning the amount payable by them to defendant No.1 still the amount has not been paid, therefore, he has filed civil suit and prayed that decree be granted directing the defendants to pay Rs. 60,000/- along with 6% interest. 4. The defendants have filed the written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint mainly contending tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r will be allotted to the lowest quoted persons. As per office of Block Education Officer there is no mention about payment to plaintiff in cash or through cheque, if any material is received in the office then it has to be mentioned in the stock register. He has further stated that plaintiff has not given any bill to Block Education Officer, Farasgaon and purchase order has not been issued by the office. The witness was cross examined and in the cross examination he has denied that any order was given to the plaintiff. He has also denied that cheque (Ex.P-5) has been issued from the office. He has denied that plaintiff is entitled to get interest on the some dues and he has stated that since no record is available in the office he has given this statement. 8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, pleading material on record has allowed the suit by recording the finding that after dishonour of cheque to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- payment has not been made, therefore, the trial Court directed the defendant to pay Rs. 60,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 28.01.2004 till payment is actually made. 9. Being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llan, no witnesses was examined by the plaintiff in his support. 14. 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. Similarly, in the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that as per Ex.P-4 he has supplied the material thereafter additional supply order was given to him but he has not filed any document to show that the supply order is made to him. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that no specific order for supply of material valued at Rs. 61,464/- has been given to him. It is well settled practice in the government department that supply order is always made in writing but no work order has been placed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. Learned trial Court has heavily relied upon the challan from Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28 but from the challan it is not established that material was supplied and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it; (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person: 16. 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. 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rishi vs Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558 has held as under;- There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the ....