MAYO PHARMACY Vs. ABOOBACKER HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 178 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode are the appellants. The suit was to recover Rs. 10,000/- on the strength of two promissory notes executed by the 1st defendant.

(2.) THE material averments in the plaint may be summarised as follows:--Defendants 1 to 3 are the partners of the firm'mayo Pharmacy' and the 1st defendant is the Managing Partner. THE Ist defendant in his capacity as the Managing Partner, borrowed Rs. 5,000/- on behalf of the firm on 5-8-1975 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, on 9-10-1975 , the Ist defendant in his capacity as the Managing Partner of Mayo Pharmacy borrowed another sum of rs. 5,000/- and executed a promissory note. In spite of repeated demands, defendants did not pay the amount. Plaintiff also caused to send a lawyer's notice demanding payment, but that also did not yield any result. Hence the suit.

(3.) IN order to prove the transactions, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. P. W. 1 is the plaintiff. He gave evidence that the defendants were partners of Mayo Pharmacy and the 1st defendant was the Managing Partner, that the first defendant in his capacity as Managing Partner, of Mayo Pharmacy and for and on behalf of Mayo Pharmacy, borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from him on 5-8-1975 and executed Ext. Al pronote that on 9-10-1975, he likewise borrowed another sum of Rs. 5,000/- and executed Ext. A2 pronote for and on behalf of Mayo Pharmacy, that the 1st defendant signed the documents before him and PW. 2, and that the husbands of defendants 2 and 3 were also there when the pronotes were executed and the amounts were borrowed. He also stated that inspite of repeated demands, money was not paid and on 23-7-1978, he caused a lawyer's notice, a copy of which is Ext. A3, to be sent that the said notice was returned by the 1st defendant and Ext. A4 is the letter returned unserved and that the letters sent by the 2nd and 3rd defendants were received by them and Exts. A5 and A6 are the acknowledgments. IN cross examination, he stated that the 1st defendant and the husbands of defendants 2 and 3 demanded the amount and that they represented to him that the amounts were borrowed for and on behalf of the firm. Nothing has been brought out in cross examination to cast doubt on the veracity of the testimony of PW1.