BASANT SINGH Vs. SAI MAHESH & COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff M/s Sai Mahesh and Company, Commission Agents, New Grain Market, Fazilka through its Proprietor Sh.Subhash Chander had brought a suit against defendant and Basant Singh seeking recovery of Rs.6,56,015.00 i.e. Rs.4,27,250.00 as principal and Rs.2,28,165.00 as interest thereon @ 1.5% per month from the date of institution of the suit till actual realization, on the assertions that the plaintiff has been working as a commission agent advancing loan amounts to agriculturists only for meeting their needs in connection with sowing crops etc. as well as daily requirements, which amounts were adjusted by sale of crops by such agriculturists through commission agency of the plaintiff; that the defendant being an agriculturist approached the plaintiff giving an assurance to sell his agricultural produce through commission agency of the plaintiff and in that way to have dealings with him; the plaintiff acceded to such request of the defendant and opened an account in the name of the defendant in his account books; that the defendant had agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month on the amount taken by him as advance from the plaintiff; that during the period 24/2/2002 to 30/8/2002, the defendant borrowed various sums including an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs on 24/5/2002, Rs.1,50,000.00 on 4/6/2002 and Rs.77,250.00 on 30/8/2002 and signed the vouchers in that regard, however, subsequently the defendant neither sold his crops through the commission agency of plaintiff nor returned the amount so borrowed by him with interest, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to bring the suit.

(2.) On notice the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contesting the suit raising preliminary objections that suit was not maintainable since it had not been filed by a competent person inasmuch as M/s Sai Mahesh and Co. is a proprietorship concern; that the plaintiff had not been maintaining true, correct and proper accounts, therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act; that the suit was barred by law of limitation; that no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit; that the suit had not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and the suit was based upon false, fictitious and frivolous grounds. The defendant had further asserted that the vouchers of the plaintiff's concern were in loose form and any of the blank voucher could be inserted or taken out of it and the entries made in the cash book do not bear the signatures of the alleged loanee. According to the defendant, he had dealings with the plaintiff till 26/3/2002, however on deposit of Rs.80,186.00 on that date, the defendant had not approached the plaintiff again requesting for grant of any loan; that the defendant had stopped dealings with the plaintiff for the reason that plaintiff was not maintaining true and proper accounts giving rise to its dispute with various persons. On merits, the defendant reiterated the pleas taken by him in the preliminary objection while craving for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff had filed replication controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.