HARI GOKAL JEWELLERS Vs. SATISH KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Hari Gokal Jewellers, a partnership concern filed a suit for accounts against Mr. Satish Kapur while stating that the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.18 lakhs. The plaintiffs were paying the requisite court fee and in the event of decree being exceeding the amount mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff undertook to pay the additional amount as directed by the Court. The suit was filed on the premise that the defendant was carrying on somewhat similar business under the name and style of Satish Kapur and Co. The defendant used to supply raw gold and the parties were having dealings for the last 5 to 6 years. The defendant was selling the raw gold to the plaintiff and he was buying jewelery from it. The payments were being made by cheques issued from time to time by the plaintiff against the bills raised by the defendant. On one occasion, the defendant was paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as a loan and as a measure of accommodation on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter in January, 2004 On these transactions, according to the plaintiff, the defendant would be found to be owing to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- approximately. The plaintiff claims to have made oral and written demands to the defendant including serving a demand notice dated 7th October, 2004 and corrigendum thereto dated 23rd October, 2004 for payment of the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendant but instead of making the said payments, the defendant threatened the plaintiff vide notice dated 16th October, 2004 that the plaintiff owed money to the defendant and as such the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit with a prayer that a decree for account may be passed against the defendant for the period prior to and after the marriage of her daughter in relation to jewelery transactions as well as the loan taken. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for passing of a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts and also for passing such other orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.

(2.) Summons in the suit were issued. In response to the said summons, the defendant on 14th January, 2005 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to which the plaintiff filed a reply. After hearing the arguments of the parties on the said application, vide judgment dated 16th February, 2005, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi rejected the plaint by holding that the suit as framed was not maintainable and dismissed the suit with costs of Rs.10,000/- and directed that the registry of the Court to prepare a decree in terms thereof.

(3.) Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present Regular First Appeal. The correctness of the judgment and decree of the trial court has been questioned by the appellant in the present appeal primarily on the following grounds :-