LAWS(APH)-1991-12-44

SANJAY TRADERS BHILAI Vs. MUNSHI DEVI

Decided On December 30, 1991
SANJAY TRADERS, BHILAI Appellant
V/S
MUNSHI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent herein is the Managing Partner of the 3rd respondent- Firm which is doing business in coconuts. The 3rd respondent-firm supplied water-coconuts worth Rs .18,005 /-to the appellant-firm which is carrying on its business at Bhilai in Madhya Pradesh. The appellant purchased a Demand Draft for Rs.18,005/- in favour of the 3rd respondent-firm from Allahabad Bank, Bhilia Branch on 16-8-1987 to be payable at Allahabad Bank Branch at Kakinada. As some disputes arose between Respondents 3 and 4 on the one hand and respondents 1 and 2 on the other, respondents 1 and 2 have filed O.S.No.617 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif's court, Kakinada for recovery of the amounts due to them and pending disposal of the suit they have also filed I.A.No.1481 of 1977 under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C.seeking attachment before Judgment of the above said draft amount and the trial Court granted interim attachment prohibiting the Allahabad Bank at Kakinada, from payment of the draft amount to respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) While the appellant herein filed a claim petition I.A.No.1279 of 1979 to raise the attachment contending that one Mahaveer Trading Company, Kakinada, has already paid the bill amount to respondents 3 and 4 and they have also sent a letter dated: 22-8-1977 to the Allahabad Bank, Bhilai to stop payment of the draft amount to respondents 3 and 4 and a telegram was sent to the Bank's branch at Kakinada.

(3.) On a consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties, the trial Court came to a conclusion that there is no truth with regard to the alleged payment by Mahaveer Trading Co., to respondents 3 and 4 and the claim petition is the result of collusion between the appellant, Sri Mahaveer Trading Co., Kakinada and Respondents 3 and 4 including the Allahabad Bank and ultimately dismissed the claim petition. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. Aggrieved against the said Judgments, the appellant filed this present appeal.