C SATYANARAYANA Vs. KANUMARLAPUDI LAKSHMI NARASIMHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali confirming substantially the judgment of the trial Court. The respondent (plaintiff) filed the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 675-9-0 as amount due from the firm of C. Satyanarayana and K. Kotilingam Setty and Company, and its partners It was contended that the 3rd defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 500 on 25-2-1953 from the plaintiff at Janardanapuram of Kandukur Taluk. Since the amount has not been paid, the suit was laid. Defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 contended that the 3rd defendant did not borrow any money, and they also pleaded in the alternative that even if the 3rd defendant had borrowed any money, the firm is not liable to pay that amount, nor the other partners are liable.

(2.) 3rd defendant in his written statement denied that he ever borrowed Rs. 500 from the respondent. He contended that on that day, i. e. on 25-2-1953 he was not at Janardanapuram, but he was at Madras and that no such transaction took place, He contended alternatively that the transaction took place at Madras and it is the Madras City Civil Court that has got the Jurisdiction, and opt the District Munsiff of Kanigiri. He further pleaded that a Receiver is appointed in a suit Wed for dissolution of the defendants' firm, and unless the Receiver is made a party and the permission of the Court is obtained, the present suit is not maintainable.

(3.) Upon these pleadings, the learned District Munsiff framed appropriate issues. After recording the evidence adduced by the parties, he held that the suit debt is true. He also found that the suit is maintainable, since in his view, neither the Receiver was a necessary or proper party, nor the permission of the Court was required at the stage of the filing of the suit. Consequently, he decreed the plaintiff's suit.