(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of the amount sent by it to the defendants as advance for purchase of machinery, consequent on the breach of contract allegedly committed by the defendants. The case, in brief, of the appellant is that Respondents 2 to 5 who are partners of the first respondent agreed to supply W.S.T. Draftings for eleven ring spinning frames of 440 spindles each within the time stipulated and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,40,937-50Ps. by way of telegraphic transfer but had supplied only two ring frames of 440 spindles each in April 1979. After prolonged correspondence they supplied two more ring frames consisting of 692 spindles, instead of 880 spindles in July 1979 and one poor and inferior quality set of 440 spindles in November 1979 and failed to supply the balance quantity in spite of repeated demands and so it was obliged to purchase the remaining quantity from another supplier. So respondents are bound to return Rs.82,352-73Ps., kept with them with interest apart from the loss of Rs.61, 455/- incurred by it due to the breach of contract committed by the respondents.
(2.) 2nd respondent filed written statement on behalf of 1st respondent contending inter alia that the Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and that it is a proprietary concern in which Respondents 3 to 5 have no interest and that it did not commit any breach of contract and since the appellant refused to take the amount tendered by him and since he had to make several trips and had to spend Rs.7,562-20Ps., they are not liable to pay any damages.
(3.) 3rd respondent filed a written statement, which was adopted by Respondents 4 and 5, contending inter alia that they are not the partners of the first respondent, which, in fact, a sole proprietary concern of which the 2nd respondent is proprietor and so they are not liable to pay any amount to the appellant