' This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Civil Judge First Class, Karachi dated 28-2-1974 by which the claim of the respondent having supplied goods of Rs,24,457.40 on credit to the appellant was allowed and they were further allowed" six per cent interest thereon with costs.
2. The relevant facts are that the plaintiffs and defendants were having dealings with each other and on 12-10-1970 printed cambric of Rs, 14,727.28 was supplied by plaintiff to respondent through one Tabani broker. Similarly on 21-1-1970 similar goods of Rs, 9,730.12 were supplied by plaintiff to defendant in the same manner. Since the money was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff sent an acknowledgement due notice on 10-1-1972 which was duly received by the defendants at their two different offices at SITE, Karachi as well as Gordhandas Market Karachi. But the defendant did not reply to the said notice and hence suit No, 409/72 was filed on 8-3-1972 where the factum of supply of goods was specifically pleaded in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint and the factum of service of notice was also duly pleaded. In the written statement in para 2 the defendant admitted business dealings between the parties but pleaded that goods were being purchased from the plaintiff for the business of defendant in East Pakistan and the account for the same was being kept in East Pakistan but the defendants have now no control over it and, therefore, they were not able to verify the accounts or the correctness of the allegations made by the plaintiffs and the payments to them. In these circumstances paras 2 and 3 of the plaint were denied. The receipt of notice served by plaintiff upon the defendant and specifically pleaded in para 4 of the plaint was not specifically denied but para 4 was generally denied. The claim of interest was of course denied.
3. Issues were framed and the important issue was whether the defendants purchased from the plaintiff the goods for the value of Rs, 24,457.40 on credit. Mr. Abbas was examined on behalf of the plaintiff who proved that plaintiff supplied the goods mentioned in the plaint to the defendant. He produced two credit memos Exh. 6 and 7 of the supply of the said goods and he also produced the notice as well as the acknowledgement due Exhs. 8,9 and 10. He claimed interest at Rs, 12% according to the custom of the market. He admitted in cross-examination that there was no A.D.
Receipt in token of having received the goods by the defendants. He was put question whether the goods were purchased for East Pakistan but he stated that he had no knowledge. It was further put to him that the defendants used to make payments after the disposal of the goods in East Pakistan which he denied. He also denied the maintenance of accounts of such transaction by defendants in East Pakistan. Exh. 8, the notice, clearly specified the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and their failure to pay for the same and a claim for interest at the rate of 12% Exhs. 9 and 10 acknowledgement receipts, show that the latter in question was duly received at the two offices of the defendant.
4. One Ahmad was examined by defendant who stated that they did not receive any goods covered by Exh. 6 and 7 and they did not bear any signature of the representative of the defendant.
He admitted that plaintiff used to supply goods to them at Karachi but stated that no amount was outstanding against them. He stated that after fall of Dacca they had no control over their branches. In cross-examination he admitted that they had dealings with plaintiff in 1970 for about six months and the goods used to be purchased by their head office on credit basis. He further admitted that no order for supply of goods was placed by them in writing. He further admitted that the plaintiff used to issue a credit memo in respect of the goods purchased by them for East Pakistan and the delivery was accepted by their Go down Keeper, Abdul Satter, who used to sign on their behalf on the credit memo. He further admitted that sometimes they used to purchase the goods through one Mr. Tabani who was a broker. He stated that they did not keep the record in their books about the goods dispatched to East Pakistan branches and further stated that the record could not be produced due to Gherao by their workeRs, He denied the receipt of Exhs. 9 a.Nd 10 which are the acknowledgement due receipts.
5. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge. He relied upon the provisions of order 8 rule 5 C.P.C.
Which requires every allegation of fact in the plaint to be denied specifically and if it is not so denied it shall be taken to be admitted. In view of the averments contained in pare 2 of the written statement he was of the view that the plaintiffs had not specifically denied the receipt of the goods by them on two dates and the last line in pare 2 of the written statement that para 2 of the plaint is denied was treated by him as a general denial. Coupled with this he took into consideration the statement of the plaintiffs' witness and found the claim of the plaintiffs established. In my view the approach of the learned trial Judge was correct.
6. Mr. Dastgir on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the defendants' witness had specifically denied the receipt of the goods by the appellants and the same therefore should have been positively established by the plaintiffs and they should have particularly examined Mr. Tabani, the broker. However I find that the witness for the defendants has made a wrong statement when he denied the receipt of the notice from the plaintiffs. It was not open to him to make such a denial in view of the acknowledgement receipts produced by the plaintiffs. The two acknowledgement receipts were addressed to the defendants at the address shown in the plaint and they are signed by one Abdul Qayyum and another in Gujrati. There is a presumption that the registered letter addressed to the person is delivered at the address of the person to whom it is addressed. The address in the plaint upon which the defendant is served is the same as that of the A.D. Receipts and therefore the presumption is that the defendants have received this notice Exh. 8 and, therefore, denial of the receipt of that notice is incorrect. Said notice was not replied. Their failure to reply to the said notice is proof of the fact that they have received the goods in question and have not paid for the same. The denial of defendant's witness that notice was not received is evidently incorrect and adversely reacts upon the rest of his statement.
7. In any case the memos Exhs. 6 and 7 produced by the plaintiffs are contained in a book which contains hundreds of other memos and this book appears to be maintained in regular course of business and, therefore, reliance could have been placed upon it.
Consequently the statement of the defendants' witness that the had not received the said goods has been quite rightly disbelieved. I, B therefore, maintain the decree for the payment of the goods purchased by the defendants/appellants from the respondents. However, I do not find the claim for interest as properly established and Mr. Fazal Bhoy concedes to drop that claim. The learned counsel for respondents has fairly agreed that the respondents would have no objection to the dropping of the claim of interest. Consequently the decree for Rs, 24,457.40 is hereby affirmed but the interest is not allowed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed except to the extent of interest. The decrial amount of Rs, 24,457.40 will be paid to the respondents from the amount deposited- by the appellants in this appeal and balance will be refunded to the appellants.