SANA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ZED PHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 9 of the Ahmedabad City Courts Act, 1961 has been preferred by the appellant herein ? original defendant No.2 challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2010 passed by the learned City Civil Court, at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.1120/2005, by which the learned Judge has partly allowed the said suit directing the appellant ? original defendant No.2 and others to pay a total sum of Rs.2,47,723/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 herein ? original plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No.1120/2005 against the appellant herein ? original defendant No.2 and other defendants for recovery of Rs.7,38,517/- with interest claiming the said amount by way of arrears of commission. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was working as a sole selling agent with defendant company and as per the understanding, he was to be paid 8% commission on selling of the defendant's products and he had to work exclusively for the defendant company. It was submitted that 70% of the selling amount was paid in cash to the defendants, but the defendants who were supposed to pay 8% commission on such selling, failed to do so. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that a total sum of Rs.7,38,517/- is due and payable towards the arrears of commission. That the suit was resisted by defendant No.1 by filing the written statement at Exh.43. It was contended on behalf of defendant No.1 that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and mis-joinder of cause of action. It was specifically denied that a total sum of Rs.7,38,517/- was due and payable. It was contended that there was no agreement or understanding to pay 8% commission to the plaintiff. The suit was also resisted by the defendant No.2 ? appellant herein by filing the written statement at Exh.45 and contentions almost similar to that raised by defendant No.1 were raised. The suit was also resisted by defendant No.3 by filing written statement at Exh.49 raising the similar contentions as raised by other defendants. Defendants did not led any evidence either oral or documentary. That the learned trial Court framed the following issues at Exh.56.

(3.) IN view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.