THE FIRM OF SHA PERACHAND NOPAJI, BY MANAGING PARTNER SHA RATAN CHAND AND ORS. Vs. THE FIRM OF M.G. BROTHERS LORRY SERVICE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these appeals are three in number and the suits out of which they arose are also three in number, the soul and crux of this diversity in numbers are one and the same. Only the Plaintiffs -Appellants and the amounts of their claims differ from case to case. But both the Defendants -Respondents and the nature of the dispute are identical. Logically, therefore, same arguments have been addressed in the Court below as well as before us and the trial Court rendered a single judgment in all of them. We propose to do the same.

(2.) SINCE the facts in the three appeals are identical, it would be adequate if we state the facts in A.S. 651/74 which arises out of O.S. 134/69 wherein the Plaintiff has claimed the largest amount of the three matters. Suffice it to mention that A.S. Nos. 326 and 510 of 1975 arise out of O.S. No. 135 and 136 of 1969 respectively. The Plaintiffs -Appellants in the first two regular appeals are firms, while the Appellant in the last is a single individual. The 1st Defendant -1st Respondent in all the matter is also a firm. The 2nd Respondent is described as an individual. The Plaintiff firm filed O.S. 134/69 (it is out of this suit A.S. 651/74 arises) to recover a sum of Rs. 1,09,653.85 ps. with future interest and costs against both the Defendants severally and jointly. We will hereafter refer to the parties as they were in the suits. The Plaintiff is a registered firm doing the business of bankers, merchants and commission agents at Kurnool. 1st Defendant is a public carrier firm with its head office at Yemmiganur and one of its several branches in Kurnool, 2nd Defendant is a dealer in old metals and vessels in Kurnool town. He purchases old metals and vessels and sells them in bulk to wholesale merchants within and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. He sends them by road as well as by rail. When he sends them by road, he has been entrusting the work of transport to the 1st Defendant public carrier firm through a system of way bills. These way bills, it may be clarified even at this juncture, are distinct from the way bills required under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to be in form No. X; they are more in the nature of railway receipts and may even be called "lorry receipts". Bui throughout they have been referred to in this litigation as way bills.

(3.) THE 2nd Defendant remained ex -parte in the lower Court and did not even file a written statement. Even before us he was absent.