BANWARI LAL Vs. CHAMMAN LAL BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal-in a suit for recovery of Rs. 1700/- plus Rs. 600/- as interest thereon, total Rs. 2300/- on account of unpaid price of an oil engine sold through the defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiff had originally purchased the engine in question from the company Hardmen Engineers Private Ltd., defendant-respondent no. 3, of which the defendant-respondent no. 1 is the Managing Director and defendant-respondent no. 3 was the Manager of its Kanpur Branch at the relevant time. Having found the engine to be defective, the plaintiff returned it to the defendant-respondents' Kanpur Branch from where it was taken to its Calcutta Branch and sold there for Rs. 1700/- to a person, whose name remains undisclosed, and thereafter the defendant-respondents gave the plaintiff a cheque dated 1st October 1962 drawn on a Delhi Bank, but the cheque rebounded with the remark 'refer to drawer'. THE plaintiff served a notice dated 23rd October, 1962 on the defendants but with no result. Even a criminal complaint was filed by the plaintiff against the first two defendants. That was said to be pending when the suit was filed on 1st October, 1965 for recovery of the amount of the cheque with interest.

(3.) THE trial court took up issues nos. 1 and 2 together for consideration and held that since the defendants did not receive Rs. 1700/- from the purchaser at Calcutta they were not liable to pay the amount to the plaintiff. On issue no 3 it held that the plaintiff had obtained the cheque on making a false representation on issue no. 4, that since the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1700/- there could be no question of awarding any interest on issue no. 5 that the Kanpur Courts had jurisdiction to try the suit on the finding that the cheque was made over to the plaintiff at Kanpur and also on the ground that the plaintiff had purchased the oil engine at Kanpur and therefore, a part of the cause of action did definitely arise at Kanpur and on issue no. 6, that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. In the result the trial court dismissed the suit with costs. THE lower appellate court confirmed the same hence the second appeal in this court.