1. The appellants are defendants and the respondents are plaintiffs in O.S.No.509 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai. After completion of pleadings and trial, the trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.3,29,276.50/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment. Challenging the same, the appellants/defendants in the suit have filed the present appeal.

2. Brief facts stated in the plaint is as follows:-

The respondents/plaintiffs are doing garment export business from Mumbai. The appellants/defendants approached the respondents/plaintiffs for purchase of their garments and accordingly, the respondents/plaintiffs placed an order to the appellants/defendants under agreed terms. Though the appellants/defendants agreed to supply the required garments on or before 15.01.2000, they had partly supplied the goods that too were sub-standard and hence, the respondents/plaintiffs rejected and returned the same to the appellants/defendants. According to the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff, in this regard, the appellants/defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,97,857/- with 24% interest till 31.03.2003 amounting to Rs.5,67,902.50/- and there is a Ledger account of the 1st plaintiff's company to that effect. The 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff is a partnership firm and the appellants/defendants have to pay Rs.31,421.10/- to the 2nd plaintiff as on 31.03.2000 and along with the air freight charges of Rs.58,808/- paid by the 2nd plaintiff and the compound interest, totally, the appellants/defendants are liable to pay Rs.7,39,929/- to the 2nd plaintiff and there is also a ledger account of the 2nd plaintiff's company to that effect. One M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners at Madurai, is the supplier of yarn to the appellants/defendants and according to the respondents/plaintiffs, they have no business transaction with M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners, however, the said firm had sent bills for the purchase of yarn by the appellants/defendants, to the respondents/plaintiffs. Though the appellants/defendants issued a Cheque for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners at Madurai, still the appellants/defendants has to pay a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the said firm and in this regard, M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners filed O.S.No.777/2002 against the respondents and the appellants herein, before the Sub Court, Madurai. Thus, the respondents/plaintiffs herein sought for joint trial of both the suits. With the above averments, the respondents/plaintiffs herein filed the above suit to direct the appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,67,901.30/- to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.1,72,028.95/- to the 2nd plaintiff along with 24% interest from the date of plaint till the date of payment.

3. Brief averments stated in the written statement is as follows:-

The 1st appellant/1st defendant's partnership firm was dissolved in September 2000 and it is not registered under the Companies Act, as such, the suit against the 1st appellant/1st defendant is not maintainable and has to be dismissed. The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action. Further, the person who signed the plaint, had no authority to file the suit, as such, the suit has to be dismissed. The respondents/plaintiffs placed order only to the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant and the 1st appellant/1st defendant purchased yarn only as an agent of the respondents/plaintiffs and the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant manufactured garments after supply of yarn and accessories by the respondents/plaintiffs. The allegations of the respondents/plaintiffs that the goods will be supplied within 15.01.2000 and the supply of defective goods by the defendants, are denied. Thus, the allegation of return of defective goods to the appellants/defendants and the consequential amount claimed in the suit is also denied as false. Since the 1st defendant purchased yarn from M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners only in the capacity of agent of the respondents/plaintiffs, the 1st appellant/1st defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the said firm and further, the bills were issued only in the names of the respondents/plaintiffs. As per the agreed terms, the respondents/plaintiffs shall provide yarn and other accessories to the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant and the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant shall manufacture and supply the finished goods to the respondents/plaintiffs, as such, there is no business transaction between the appellants 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2. Even in the bills issued by M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners, the 1st appellant/1st defendant was termed as an agent of the respondents/plaintiffs. Thus, the appellants/defendants are not liable to pay the amount claimed in the suit. Besides, evidence has already been recorded and closed in the suit filed by M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners and due to mis-joinder of parties and cause of action, joint trial is not necessary. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to the amount claimed in the suit

ii) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs have no authority to file the suit

iii) Whether the suit is maintainable due to mis-joinder of parties iv) Whether the 1st appellant/1st defendant acted as agent of the respondents/plaintiffs

v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation

5. In order to substantiate the case, during trial, on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and 20 documents were marked. On the side of the appellants/defendants, one witness was examined and 2 documents were marked.

6. Upon consideration of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.3,29,276.50/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants/defendants have filed the present appeal with the following grounds:-

(i) While the 1st appellant/1st defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant is a partnership firm. Since both of them are distinct and separate entities, single suit is not maintainable against them.

(ii) Further, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action, as such, the suit is barred under Order II Rule 3 CPC and the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit by applying Order II Rule 7 CPC, as the mis-joinder goes to the very root of the matter.

(iii) The trial Court ought to have seen that Exs.A9, A10, A11, A12, A15, A16 and A17 pertain to the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant which has nothing to the with the 1st appellant/1st defendant.

(iv) The ledger accounts produced by the respondents/plaintiffs for the year 1999-2000 under Ex.A6 relates to the 2nd appellant/2nd defendant alone and nothing has been stated as to how the 1st appellant/1st defendant is liable for the alleged amount due.

(v) Ex.A7 produced by the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff relates to the 2 nd defendant and it has not connected with the 1st defendant and there is no business transaction between the appellants 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2.

(vi) Merely because in Ex.A8, the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff stated that both the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount due, that will not entitle the respondents/plaintiffs to file a suit combining different causes of action.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that the suit is barred by limitation and the ledger accounts marked by the respondents/plaintiffs were not proved in the manner known to law and the same have not been certified under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would further submit that mere marking of the ledger accounts copy is not sufficient to prove the liability and the person who made entries has to be examined to prove the same. Thus, the requirements under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are not complied with and Exs.P6 and P7 have not been proved by examining the person who made the entry. In this regard, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2015-1-L.W. 312, Madras Cements Limited vs. T.M.T.Kannammal Educational Trust and another. In that case also, the person who made entry in the ledger book has not been examined and the original ledger book has not been produced. The learned counsel would further submit that the transactions between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant are distinct and therefore, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and cause of action and the trial Court failed to consider the same and erroneously decreed the suit. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed and the appeal has to be allowed.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the appellants/defendants have not denied the transaction between them and the respondents/plaintiffs and they have also admitted that they supplied the defective goods to the respondents/plaintiffs. The said communication sent by the appellants/defendants to the respondents/plaintiffs was marked as Ex.P9 which clearly shows that the appellants/defendants admitted that they have received the returned defective goods. Therefore, now they cannot say that they are not liable to pay the amount and the respondents/plaintiffs have proved their claim by way of pleadings and also the oral and documentary evidence. Once the appellants/defendants admitted the transactions and the receipt of the returned defective goods, they are liable to pay the amount claimed in the suit. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in 2007 (3) CTC 101 [LQ/SC/2007/128] , Prem Lala Nahata and another vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, and 2020-3-L.W. 564, A.Maheswari vs. A.Jeyaraj.

9. Heard both sides and perused the records.

10. Admittedly, there was a business transaction between the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants regarding the supply of yarn and the finished goods. The respondents/plaintiffs have authorised one Devang Sheth to represent them in the suit. The said authorised person has been examined as PW1. He has marked Ex.P1- registration certificates of the 1st plaintiff's company and the 2nd plaintiff's partnership firm. The authorisation letters given by the respondents/plaintiffs were marked as Exs.A3 and A4. The 1st plaintiff's Memorandum and Articles of Association was marked as Ex.P5.

11. PW1, during his examination, reiterated the plaint averments. He deposed that on receipt of the defective goods, the respondents/plaintiffs communicated the same to the appellants/defendants, for which, the appellants/defendants replied to despatch them back and therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs returned the defective goods which was received by the appellants/defendants. The said receipt of defective goods by the appellants/defendants was confirmed by the letter dated 21.04.2000. The appellants/defendants had not raised any objection regarding the return of defective goods, as such, they are liable to pay the suit claim. The ledger accounts of the respondents/plaintiffs were marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 respectively. PW1 further deposed that the appellants/defendants are liable to pay the suit amount as per the statement of accounts and the amount paid by the respondents/plaintiffs to M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners at Madurai on account of the yarn supplied to the appellants/defendants which was not included in the account statement since at that time, the suit filed by M/s.Thiruvettai Spinners was pending and in that suit, they contended that the defendants therein are liable to pay the said amount, since they received yarn. The appellants/defendants sent tentative accounts copy on 22.02.2000 which was marked as Ex.P8 and the confirmation letter dated 21.04.2000 of the appellants/defendants for having received the returned defective goods by the respondents/plaintiffs was marked as Ex.P9. The other letters sent by the appellants/defendants were marked as Exs.P11 and P12 respectively. The legal notice sent by the respondents/plaintiffs was marked as Ex.P13 and the reply notice was marked as Ex.P14. The appellants/defendants sent a mail dated 05.11.1999 regarding the orders of supply of garments on 01.01.2000 which was marked as Ex.A15. The respondents/plaintiffs had sent Fax Message order dated 31.12.1999 which was marked as Ex.P16. The appellants/defendants sent letter dated 18.07.2000 to the respondents/plaintiffs regarding debit note of respondents/plaintiffs which was marked as Ex.P17. The respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 676/2006 to amend the claim amount since there was a typographical mistake, but the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court.

12. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 and the documents marked through him, it is seen that the appellants/defendants have confirmed the receipt of the returned defective goods by a letter dated 21.04.2000 which has been marked as Ex.P9 and within three years from that date, the suit was filed on 17.04.2003 and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. Further Exs.P6 and P7-ledger accounts of the respondents/plaintiffs clearly show the liabilities of the appellants/defendants. The trial Court has also rightly answered the abovesaid issues.

13. As far as the mis-joinder of parties and cause of action is concerned, from the perusal of the plaint averments and the oral evidence of PW1 and the documentary evidence, where there is a clear admission of business transactions of the appellants/defendants with the respondents/plaintiffs and their liability, this Court finds that there is no mis-joinder of parties and cause of action. Even assuming that separate suit should be filed, it will only create multiplicity of proceedings and by virtue of filing of the present suit, no prejudice has been caused to the appellants/defendants. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on a judgment reported in 2007 (3) CTC 101 [LQ/SC/2007/128] , Prem Lala Nahata and another vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Order I Rules 3-A, 4 and 5 is clear that no suit shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties and the Court may in either case deal with the matter in controversy so far as it regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. Court is also empowered in appropriate circumstances to substitute or add any person as a plaintiff in a suit. The plaintiff except as otherwise provided may unite in the same suit several causes of actions against the same defendant and any plaintiffs having causes of actions in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant may unite such causes of action in the same suit. Court is also enabled to order separate trials even in a case of mis-joinder of causes of action in a plaint filed.

14. Though the appellants/defendants contended that Exs.P6 and P7 are computer generated copies of ledger accounts and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has not been obtained, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, for the reason that Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, came into force only on 17.10.2000, whereas, Exs.P6 and P7 which are the ledger accounts for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2001. Therefore, for mere non production of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the said documents cannot be ignored and the same cannot be a sole ground to disbelieve the claim of the respondents. Thus, the contention of the appellants/defendants in this regard is not sustainable.

15. As far as non examination of the person who made entries in the ledger accounts, it is to be noted that the appellants/defendants themselves have accepted the transactions and receipt of the returned defective goods through Ex.P9. The respondents/plaintiffs have maintained the accounts properly which was regularly kept in the normal course of business and the authorised person has been examined as PW1. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents also relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2020-3-L.W. 564, A.Maheswari vs. A.Jeyaraj, wherein, this Court has held that marking of xerox instead of original documents cannot be said that the document is totally inadmissible and mere non examination of a person who has entered entries in the document, cannot be a ground to ignore the document. Therefore, in this case, mere non examination of the person who made entries in the computarised ledger accounts is not fatal to the case of the respondents/plaintiffs. Thus, the decision relied on by the appellants/defendants in this regard is not applicable to the present case on hand. Therefore, the appellants/defendants are liable to pay the amount. Though the trial Court rejected the claim of air freight charges and other damages, the respondents/plaintiffs have not challenged the same and though the respondents/plaintiffs claimed interest at 24%, since it is a commercial transaction, the trial Court has awarded only 7.5% interest which is reasonable and the respondents/plaintiffs have not challenged the same.

16. The appellate Court being a fact finding Court, it has to reappreciate the entire pleadings, oral and documentary evidence. On a careful perusal of the entire pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and also the judgment of the trial Court, this Court does not find any perversity or good reason to interfere with the said judgment. Though the grounds of appeal by the appellants are technical, that will not affect the substantial justice.

17. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.