TRIKAMDAS JETHABHAI Vs. JIVRAJ KALIANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a motion by the defendants asking for a stay of this suit upon the ground that there is an earlier suit between the same parties instituted in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Kar-war in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue. The application is supported by an affidavit of defendant No.1. The facts which give rise to the question may be shortly stated as follows:-

(2.) THE plaintiffs and the defendants carried on business in partnership from November 15, 1936, in Bombay in the name and style of Keshavlal & Co., and at Kumta and Sirsi in North Kanara in the name and style of Anandrai Himatlal & Co. Defendant No.1 used to manage the business, of the partnership at Sirsi and defendant No.2 used to manage the business of the partnership in Bombay. In the year 1940 one Lalchand Haribhai Gandhi, a brother-in-law of plaintiff No.1, came to work in the Sirsi branch as a clerk. According to the defendants by his tactless conduct and association with rival traders at Sirsi he was damaging the business of the partnership and sending false reports to the plaintiffs in Bombay with the object of creating prejudice and suspicion against the defendants in the minds of the plaintiffs. In consequence of this defendant No.2 wrote a letter to defendant No.1 at Sirsi dated May 9, 1941, which among other things said as follows:- Whatever it may be, may Lalchand fulfill his desire to the fullest extent which will be short lived. Give him such a medicine that he may not be able to stay in Sirsi. It may be disposed off in four days illness. If (he) harasses too much, clear the way.

(3.) A copy of the plaint in the Karwar suit is annexed as exhibit No. (2) to the written statement in this case. It sets out the facts to which I have already referred in consequence of which the defendants alleged that they were coerced and induced to put their signatures to the documents in question. The plaintiffs in that suit ask that those documents may be set aside as having been obtained without any consideration and under undue influence, coercion and threats. They ask for an injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering and taking possession of the suit properties in enforcement of the terms of the said documents and they pray for a declaration that the partnership still continues and that the alleged dissolution of partnership from the end of October, 1940, is not binding upon them, and that as they intend to retire the partnership may be dissolved and accounts may be ordered. The written statement in that suit is annexed to the affidavit of defendant No.1 in support of this notice of motion as exhibit No. (1). It denies all the allegations in the plaint and alleges that the plaintiffs executed the documents in question of their own free will and that the plaintiffs in the Karwar suit are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.