LAKHIRAM AGARWALLA Vs. BRAJLAL AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are in appeal against the reversing decree of the learned District judge. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the partners of the firm, plaintiff No. 3. Similarly defendants 1 to 4 are partners of the Firm, defendant No. 4,

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit on 17-6-1963 for recovery of Rs. 4068. 75 from the defendants on the allegation that pursuant to an agreement they had despatched by train 93 bass of broken rice to the defendants for effecting sale thereof at the rail-head, i. e. Shalimar Railway station. The defendants had quoted the prevailing market rate to be Rs. 17. 50 per-maund. As the defendants did not pay the price and raised false pleas to avoid the liability, the plaintiffs were obliged to come to the Court.

(3.) THE defendants in a joint written statement denied that the despatch of the consignment was not in the manner as pleaded by the plaintiffs; the defendant No. 2 had informed the second plaintiff that the defendants were not licensed dealers under the West Bengal Food Grains Licensing Order and thus it would be difficult for them to dispose of the consignment of broken rice at Calcutta; it was ultimately agreed that the plaintiffs would despatch, the consignment to Shalimar with their man and attempt would be made for disposal with the assistance of defendant No. 3 the plaintiffs representative accompanying the consignment not the stock transported to the premises of one Mohanlal and Co. with the help of defendant No. 3: the stock of broken rice was unfit for human consumption and the authorities of the Calcutta Corporation ceased and destroyed the same and even started a prosecution, against Mohanlal and Co. ; the claim was not tenable as the contract was illegal, the Bargarh Court had no jurisdiction: the suit suffered from defect of non-joinder of parties --Corporation of Calcutta and Mohanlal and Co. were necessary parties; the claim was barred by limitation, etc. ,