RAM LAL HARNAM DASS Vs. BAL KRISHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a debtors' appeal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act against the decision of the Tribunal passing a de-cree for Rs. 5,364/7/9 in favour of the displaced creditors. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

(2.) THE respondents who are partners of the firm Murli Mal Balmokand filed an application under Section 13, Debts Adjustment Act, against the appellant firm for the recovery of Rs. 14,000. The petitioners were carrying on their business at peshawar under the name of Murli Mai Balmokand before the partition of the country. The appellant firm is known as firm Ram Lal-Harnam Das carrying on business in Calcutta. The displaced creditors filed an application on 1-12-1949 "for leave to file a suit in forma pauperis to recover Rs. 12,900/- from the Calcutta firm. This application was hotly contested. Burins the pendency of that application the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act came into force on 10-12-1951. The displaced persons then made the present application on 31-3-1952 on the allegation that the Calcutta firm used to purchase goods from the Peshawar firm and there was a running account between them in which Rs. 14,000/- were due to the petitioners. The Calcutta firm contested the claim and raised a preliminary objection inter alia that the displaced firm could not claim the amount as it was not a registered firm and Section 69, Partnership Act, was a bar to the claim. On the merits it was denied that the Calcutta firm has ever any dealings with the peshawar firm or that there was any, kind of account between the parties or that any amount was due from it in that account. Various issues were framed on the places of the parties but it is not necessary to refer to them in detail. After the petitioners had led the evidence to show that there were dealings between the parties, Raghnnath, proprietor of the Calcutta firm was examined on commission. In the course of his statement he admitted that there were dealings between the parties and that the accounts produced by the petitioners were correct subject to objections to four items. The Tribunal upheld the objections to the item of Rs. 5,183/13/-but reduced the claim to Rs. 5,364/7/9. The Calcutta firm has filed this appeal but the displaced, creditors have not filed any appeal against the decision reducing their claim.

(3.) SHRI Amar Nath Grover has argued on behalf of the appellant in that (1) the petitioners could not file this petition as the said firm was not a registered firm, and (2) the objections to the other three items should also" have been given effect to.