CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th August, 2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 38/2005.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,95,500/- against the defendant on the plea that it had sold 300 bags of Mustard stock weighing about 265.95 Quintal at the rate of Rs.1932/- per Quintal totalling to Rs.5,34,463/- to Anand Kumar Jhanwar of Beldanga, District Murshidabad, West Bengal. The sale was effected through bill No.204 dated 21.10.2004 The said goods were transported through G.R. No.4632 dated 21.10.2004 The defendant was paid a sum of Rs.23,000/- towards advance for cartage of the goods from Delhi to Beldanga, District Murshidabad, West Bengal. Balance cartage amounting to Rs.10,343/- was payable to the defendant by purchaser/consignee at the time of delivery of the goods . The goods could not be delivered at the destination as the truck and driver were not traceable. The owner of the truck is alleged to have lodged a complaint in this regard on 4th November, 2004 The plaintiff also filed complaints dated 6th November, 2004, 26th November and 6th December, 2004 to the police and higher authorities to register a case against the defendant. After great persistence FIR No. 608 dated 7.12.2004 was registered at Police Station Keshavpuram on separate complaint made by one Mr. Hari Ram. Having failed to receive its goods or the value thereof, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,95,000/-. In this amount, the plaintiff had claimed a sum of Rs.5,64,463/- being the value of the goods, Rs.23000/- being advance freight, Rs.38,837/- as interest and Rs.3300/- as notice charges.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant, who took various objections in the detailed written statement, which was filed on his behalf. In the written statement, preliminary objection was taken that the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and without any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It was stated that suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. According to the defendant, M/s Bawa Roadlines, the owner of the truck was a necessary party to the suit as no question could be fully and finally determined in its absence. According to the defendant, he was only a booking agent. It was not disputed that GR was issued by him and goods were loaded in the truck, which did not reach its destination. However, it was stated that even the driver was not traceable and there was attempt on the part of the plaintiff to blackmail the defendant. Paras 2 and 9 of the parawise reply of the written statement discloses the stand taken by the defendant before the trial Court. The same read as under :-