JOGINDER SINGH Vs. PAKHAR SINGH AMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are in appeal, a suit for recovery of Rs. 90,000/ - was filed by the plaintiff -respondent, M/s. Pakhar Singh Amir Singh. It was claimed by the plaintiff -firm that it was a registered partnership firm and was carrying on the business of commission agent at Mandi Bariwala and maintaining accounts in three bahis. The balance was being struck every day and the account books were produced before the income tax and the sales tax authorities. It was further averred by the plaintiff that the defendants had been selling their agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff -firm and had been receiving various amounts on credit from the plaintiff -firm. The account was being settled from time to time and in token thereof, the defendants used to put their thumb impressions on the accounts books of the plaintiff -firm.

(2.) IT was claimed by the plaintiff that on February 22,1983, the defendants had received a sum of Rs. 17,296/ - and had directed the plaintiff -firm to pay Rs. 1000/ - to M/s. Makkar Model Farm, Bariwala. They had also certified the accounts to be correct and had thumb marked the entry in token thereof. At that time, the balance was struck at Rs. 70,000/ -. An entry was also made in the cash book in that regard. It was claimed that the defendants have agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per mensem. It was further claimed that the defendants had also borrowed an amount of Rs. 4500/ - subsequently. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 90,000/ -. It was clarified that out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 74,600/ - was the principal amount whereas Rs. 15,400/ - was claimed as interest amount.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on the record decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 66,854/ -. However, the learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff -firm was a money lender and had duly produced on the record a money lender licence but since it has failed to prove that the firm had been maintaining accounts and sending regular statements under Section 3 of the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, therefore, the plaintiff -firm was not entitled to interest and costs. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed as aforesaid. Additionally, the plaintiff -firm was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the decretal amount.