PIRTHI SINGH Vs. MAM RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT of Mam Raj for recovery of Rs. 30393/- has since been decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated January 30, 1989 which has since been confirmed by the Appellate Court in an appeal filed by Pirthi Singh. Hence present appeal.

(2.) THERE is no need to go into the detailed facts of the case in the context of submissions that have been made by learned counsel for the appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which, as mentioned above, has since been confirmed by the Appellate Court.

(3.) THE next and last contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that vide agreement, Ex. P1, amount was payable to a Society and that being so, plaintiff could not file a suit for recovery against the defendant-appellant. This contention has also to be repelled. A reading of the agreement would show that the same was among three persons, namely, Mam Raj, plaintiff, Pirthi Singh, defendant and one Harjit Singh. These three had mutually agreed to pay the amount mentioned in the agreement. Ex. P1 to the Society which, it appears, had gone in arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff. The burden of the plaint was that the entire amount had been paid on behalf of the plaintiff and, therefore, the amount mentioned to be payable by defendant could be recovered by him (plaintiff). In view of the terms of agreement as also pleadings, referred to above, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant to the effect aforesaid, can not possible by accepted. If it was proved, and so it was, that plaintiff had paid the entire amount, i.e. payable by the defendant, he could well, on the strength of Ex. P1, recover the amount by filing suit. Finding no merit in this appeal, I dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.