KULU TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Vs. ARORA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal filed by the Division Bench M/s. Kulu Transport Co -operative Society Ltd., Kulu, against the judgement dated August 13, 1976, of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff -firm M/s. Arora Traders and setting aside the decree of the trial Court.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are within a short compass and may be briefly set out : - The plaintiff -respondent brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 9,500/ - against the defendant -appellant. It was pleaded that the appellant -Society had been purchasing goods from the respondent -firm at Pathankot on various occasions vide bills, attached with the plaint and that after making adjustments of payments received from the appellant, the amount of Rs. 9,475/ - remained due to the respondent. The appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 2,750/ - drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kulu, but the said cheque was dishonoured. It was further alleged that notices as required under the Co -operative Societies, Act, were served on the appellant as well as on the Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, Simla and in reply to the notice, the appellant made reference to the cheque for Rs. 2,750/ -, but did not pay any amount to the respondent. It denied the allegations of the respondent. It was averred in the written statement that whatever goods were purchased by the appellant from the respondent were paid for and nothing remained due from the appellant. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Pathankot to try the suit and also challenged the validity of notice issued by the respondent under the Co -operative Societies Act. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues : -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Additional Sessions Judge has made a faint hearted attempt to assail the finding of the lower appellate Court on issue No. 1. It is contended that the lower appellate Court had erred in law in upsetting the finding on issue No. 1; that it was incumbent upon the respondent to prove that the goods had been purchased by the appellant; that the Court below has observed in its judgement, "that according to the plaintiff, goods were purchased by the defendant through Mr. Puri and it is also correct that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Mr. Puri was authorised by the defendant to purchase goods on their behalf." It is urged that on this ground, the Court below should have dismissed the respondent's suit. The contentions of the learned counsel, though appear to be pernicious do not, on consideration of the matter, hold water.