Suit for Recovery

Suit for Recovery – Against railway – Mere mention of a particular weight or description of the goods in the railway receipt is not any admission on the part of the Railways regarding the correctness of the weight or description of the goods - To claim any deficiency at the time of delivery, the plaintiff was required to prove that the quantity mentioned in the railway receipt was actually delivered to the Railways – In cross examination of the witness of the plaintiff shows that even before the Court it was only photostat which was produced; because the witness had admitted in cross examination that they have only the photostat copy of these documents - Moreover, the defendant had raised objection to exhibition of these documents and the objections was not overruled by the Court even at the time of final decision - Hence, the objection of defendant had not been discarded – Delivery of material was taken by the plaintiff – However thereafter the material was left open and unattended by the plaintiff - The weighment of the material is claimed to have been done after about 3 days – Therefore, possibility of pilferage, if any, during this period cannot be ruled out - The delivery from the Railways was taken by the plaintiff under clear receipt – Suit dismissed – Order upheld. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Suit for Recovery – Attempt on the part of the defendants to show the extent of payment towards complete satisfaction of the debt – Onus on the defendants to prove that the entire loan transaction was squared off as claimed in the written statement – Direct the trial Court either to obligate the defendants to lead evidence regarding complete satisfaction of the dues at the first instance or to make such direction after recasting necessary issues and then obligate the defendants to have a course as per the observations made. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 


Suit for Recovery – Evidence - Whether a plaintiff who does not appear in the witness-box and does not produce the account books even after having been directed by the Court, adverse inference is to be drawn against him? - Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs - In the present case, this Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to stand on his own legs - The plaintiff was required to appear at least in the witness-box and face the cross-examination - However, he has failed to appear - The only witness who has appeared in the witness-box on behalf of the plaintiff has failed to produce the account books of the firms and its sales tax record in order to prove that the amount paid was being shown as a advance and carried subsequently - Judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below are set aside. Garg Concast Limited v. Satnam Singh. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.