KISSENLAL MUNHRA Vs. MULTANMAL BUCHHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,888.03 nP. on a commission agency agreement. The plaintiff claims to carry on business at 35 Jamunalal Bajaj Street in the town of Calcutta. The defendants impleaded are three. The third defendant is a firm with which the plaintiff entered into a commission agency contract. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to be interested in the firm either as members of Mitakshars Coparcanary or as partners.

(2.) The allegations in the plaint are that on or about the 24th August, 1960 the plaintiff was appointed a commission agent of the defendant on certain terms Shortly the terms an that the plaintiff according to the instructions of the defendant firm would purchase textile goods and despatch the same. The price paid by the plaintiff for the purchase of such goods are to be recovered from the defendants with all charges and expenses plus commission, brokerage, Dharmada and certain other charges. The plaintiff would also be entitled to interest on the sum paid for the purchase of the said goods at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. It is expressly pleaded that all sums payable by the defendants would have to be paid at the plaintiff's place of business at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. In terms of this agreement business continued from 24th August, 1960 to the end of the year. The plaintiff became entitled to the payment of Rs. 16706.20 nP. on account of the above dealings. Further the plaintiff is entitled to get interest amounting to Rs. 2181.83 nP. The total claim in suit, therefore, is for Rs. 18,888.03 nP.

(3.) After the institution of the suit summons was duly served on the parties and the defendants entered appearance. There are two written statements on record, one jointly filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 3, and the other by the defendant No. 2. The Attorney representing all the defendants is the same, namely, Messrs. S. M. Bagla and Co. Before, however, filing written statement, the defendants solicitor asked for certain particulars. No particulars having been furnished an application was made for particulars. This application was heard and disposed of by Mr. Justice Ray, who, on the 26th June, 1962 directed the plaintiff to furnish certain particulars. This order further directed that in default of furnishing particulars within the time stated in the said order, the suit will stand dismissed. I will have to deal in greater detail with this order subsequently.