JOLLY VIDEOTRONICS Vs. SATISH THAPAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeals preferred under Section 100 CPC are directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2014 passed by Sh.Raghubir Singh, ADJ -15 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 14/14/12 and RCA No. 15/14/12, whereby the said first appeals preferred by the appellant/ defendant No. 1 in the suit had been dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs, who are impleaded as respondent in the respective appeals are husband and wife. Both the plaintiffs preferred their respective suits for recoveries. Appellant herein was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and M/s. Vision India was impleaded as defendant No. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were engaged in the manufacture of Television (TV) components. At the instance of the appellant/ defendant No. 1 - who gets Television sets manufactured through defendant No. 2, and on its assurance of payment, TV components were supplied by the plaintiffs to respondent No. 2 M/s. Vision India on several occasions. The plaintiffs claimed that payments were being made by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiffs. On one occasion, even defendant No. 1/ appellant made payment to the plaintiffs for the components supplied to defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 acknowledged his liability in respect of the outstanding amounts for supplies made, but did not make payment. The plaintiffs sent repeated letters to the appellant/ defendant No. 1, reminding the appellant/ defendant No. 1 of his assurance to make payment for the supplies made at his instance to the defendant No. 2, and demanding payment of the outstanding amount. These communications [Exhibits PW -1/9 (Colly.)] were sent on 10.05.2002, 10.08.2002, 25.09.2002 and 04.10.2002, but to no avail. There was no response by the appellant/ defendant No. 1 to these communications. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed their respective suits for recovery.

(3.) THE Trial Court framed the issues in respect of the plea of the appellant/ defendant No. 1, that it had no privity of contract with the plaintiff and thus, the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties. The same were issues No. 1 & 2. The parties led their respective evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, after detailed consideration of the same, decreed both the suits against both the defendants. While dealing with the aforesaid issues, the Trial Court, inter alia, observed as follows: