Ajay Jain vs Akshay Kumar Aggarwal

S. No.

Â",Date,Mode of Payment,Amount

1.,28.05.2009,"By way of Cheque

bearing no. 404639","1,25,000.00

2.,12.10.2009,"By way of Cheque

bearing no. 348929","5,00,000.00

3.,20.02.2010,"By way of Cheque

bearing no. 348946","50,000.00

4.,26.02.2010,"By   way   of

   RTGS

728578","1,00,000.00

“I do not have any delivery proof for selling the apples to plaintiff. Voltd. The same is with the plaintiff. I have sent the goods to plaintiff through,,,

private truck but the builty / challan. The name of truck driver was Aslam who was hired from Sikandrabad, U.P. I demanded the receipt from the",,,

said truck driver. Voltd. The driver informed that the same was kept by plaintiff. The hire charges were Rs.1,200/- and loading /unloading charges",,,

were Rs.500/- which were paid by plaintiff to the driver. The goods were delivered on 15.10.2010 at night.â€​,,,

It may be noted that while in the aforesaid cross examination, defendant had stated that hire charges of Rs.1,200/- and loading charges of Rs.500/-",,,

were paid by the plaintiff to the driver, but in his own document Ex. Mark DX-1, in Statement No.2, he has charged the plaintiff for the loading",,,

charges at Rs.500/- and cartridge of Rs.1,200/-, which shows the contradictions in the testimony of this witness and the document prepared and filed",,,

by him. It may be noted that document exhibit Mark DX-1 (Colly.), which mentions the details of services and goods supplied by the defendant to the",,,

plaintiff were never accepted by the plaintiff, though, the plaintiff has filed the said document, but he has never accepted the contents of the same and",,,

the defendant has failed to produce any document signed by the plaintiff to prove that payments made by plaintiff were towards the goods and,,,

services supplied by the defendant and not as friendly loan.,,,

e) As the plaintiff has proved the fact that he paid Rs.7,75,000/- to the defendant in 2009-2010 and as the defendant failed to prove that he supplied",,,

goods and services against the said amount, hence, it is held that the said amount was recovered by the defendant as loan from plaintiff and the",,,

plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from defendant.â€​,,,

In my opinion, trial court has rightly dismissed the suit because self-serving averments in deposition of having provided by the appellant/defendant to",,,

the respondent/plaintiff vastu services or precious stones or apples cannot be believed in the absence of any proof of supply of the same. This is all,,,

the more so in the opinion of this Court because a reading of the written statement shows that in the written statement it is not even vaguely stated,,,

that how the amount of Rs.7,75,000/- is divided as regards the value of vastu services provided or precious stones provided or apples sold by the",,,

appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff.,,,

C.M. Appl. No. 31600/2018 filed in this Court for additional evidence is dismissed for the reason that even if the photos filed now show that,,,

respondent/plaintiff visited the apple orchard of the appellant/defendant yet that is no proof of selling of apples and that too of a particular quantity and,,,

value.,,,

There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.,,,