GURNAM SINGH AMARJIT SINGH Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal, at the instance of plaintiff, is directed against the judgment of reversal, whereby first appeal of the defendant was allowed, dismissing the suit for recovery.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, facts of the case as recorded by learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgement are that plaintiff firm M/s Gurnam Singh Amarjit Singh through its partner Amarjit Singh filed suit for recovery of Rs.4,12,500/ - against the defendant alleging that plaintiff firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act and it is carrying on business of commission agents at Grain Market, Dharamkot. It is averred that defendant used to borrow money from the plaintiff firm with promise to sell his agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff firm. On 21.10.2002, defendant borrowed Rs.2,20,000/ - and thereafter on 29.11.2002 he borrowed Rs.80,000/ - from the plaintiff firm and thumb marked both the transactions in the Rokar Bahies of the plaintiff firm but he neither sold his agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff firm as agreed nor repaid the said amount, despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff firm. It was further averred that plaintiff firm keeps and maintains regular account books in ordinary course of its business and balance was struck daily. All the books kept by the plaintiff firm are subject to inspection by Income Tax, Sales Tax and Market Committee authorities from time to time. It was further averred that defendant at the time of borrowing of the amount, had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum, but by calculating interest at the rate of 12 1/2% per annum plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of principal amount along with interest.

(3.) UPON notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections inter -alia that suit was not maintainable in the present form and that the plaintiff had no locus -standi to file the same. It was also alleged in the preliminary objections that plaintiff might have obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on some blank papers of the Bahies, as usually commission agents used to do so and later on, had prepared bogus and false entries in his Bahies to harass the defendant. On merits, it was denied that that plaintiff firm is partnership firm. It was denied that all the customers borrowed amount from the plaintiff with a promise to sell their agricultural produce. Rather, the plaintiff was in the habit of getting thumb impressions/signatures on some blank papers of Bahies and other blank papers when the customers used to sell their produce at the commission agent shop of the plaintiff. It was denied that defendant borrowed the alleged amounts in question, rather he cleared his accounts. The dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant in the year 2001 and the defendant by selling his four kanals land for Rs.1,75,000/ - had cleared the accounts of the plaintiff and nothing was due against him. It was further averred that defendant left the shop of the plaintiff and started selling his agricultural produce at some other shop, due to which the plaintiff nursed a grudge in/his mind and wanted to recover some amount illegally and forcibly, upon which he (defendant) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff on 30.5.2002 and when the suit against the plaintiff was pending, how he paid the huge amount in question to the defendants on 21.10.2002 and 29.11.2002. It was averred that both such entries in the Rokar Bahies are bogus and frivolous and have been incorporated later on. Rest of the averments of the plaint were also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.