SIKANDAR LAL KOHLI Vs. P S KHANBATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, I propose to dispose of the appeal as also the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner as against the order dated 23.9.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Execution Case No. 49/1995 arising out of Suit No. 393/1994. By the aforesaid order, the executing Court has dismissed three applications filed by the appellant. The said applications were under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The aforesaid suit was filed by respondent No. 1 herein seeking for a decree for rendition of accounts for Rs. 76,000.00, only against all the defendants including the appellant herein. It was alleged in the said suit instituted that the respondent No. 1, the plaintiff was a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited, New Delhi, holding two shares of the company namely M/s. Sikandar Lal & Co., but in February, 1983, he sold the said shares to defendant No. 3 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000.00 and the aforesaid amount was paid by defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 1 on the instructions of the plaintiff and which was accepted by defendant No. 1 on the condition that he would do the accounting of the money between the members of the aforesaid stock exchange with the written confirmation of the plaintiff and shall refund the balance to the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement. Defendant No. 3 had admitted that he had purchased the aforesaid two shares for a consideration of Rs. 90,000.00, and he had paid the said amount to defendant No. 1 who alone was liable to render accounts to the plaintiff. In his written statement, defendant No. 1 admitted the receipt of Rs. 90,000.00, but the defence taken by him was that on oral instructions of the plaintiff he had paid a sum of Rs. 13,650.00 and another sum of Rs. 73,500.00 to different persons. It was also stated that besides, defendant No. 1 was entitled to receive Rs. 50,000.00, from the plaintiff and after adjustment of these payments a sum of Rs. 2,850.00, was clue from the plaintiff to him.