SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. HARBANS LAL SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS pleaded, respondent No.1, which is a partnership concern, is doing the business of commission agency at Abohar and maintaining its account books truly and properly. As per the further averments, appellant No.1 had a current and running account with the respondent -Firm. He had also instructed the respondent -Firm to advance amounts to defendants No.2 to 5 (i.e. appellants No. 2 and 3 and proforma respondents No.2 and 3) and thus, defendants No.2 to 5 were operating the account of defendant -appellant No.1 under his instructions and were borrowing the amounts in his account. It is the further case of the plaintiff -respondent No.1 that the defendants had borrowed various amounts as per the account books and as reflected in the suit. The amounts deposited/repaid by the defendants were duly adjusted and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 5,94,967.14 was due in the account of the defendants to which they were legally, jointly and severally liable to pay and the respondent -Firm was entitled to recover the same. Since the defendants failed to pay the said amount despite repeated requests, the respondent -Firm filed the instant suit for recovery through one of its partners.

(2.) UPON notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections stating that balance in the account books of the plaintiff -Firm was not struck daily and the entries made in the name of the defendants were wrong, false, forged and fraudulent and were not binding upon their rights. It was further alleged that the plaintiff -Firm has not complied with the provisions of Order VII Rule 17 CPC and Arun Kumar was not the registered partner of the plaintiff -Firm. It was further stated that defendant No.1 never opened any current and regular account with the plaintiff -Firm and never borrowed any amount as alleged. There was no custom prevalent in Mandi Abohar to charge interest by the commission agents from their customers. The plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court. The suit was not maintainable in the present form and was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) REPLICATION was filed controverting the averments made in the written statement and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: