KALYAN SINGH Vs. RANJOT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has directed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-6-1998 of the learned District Judge, Nahan, reversing the judgment and decree dated 7-2-1998 of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class (I). Paonta Sahib, and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 50,000.00 from the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiff on 25-10-1993 had sold barberry roots to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 37,000.00. The defendant issued a cheque for the said amount in favour of the plaintiff. Such cheque on presentation to the Bank for encashment was returned as dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of defendant. The plaintiff, accordingly, on 16-8-1995 filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rs. 37,000/- being the principal amount and Rs. 13,000.00 as interest on such principal amount at the rate of 18% per annum from 25-10-1993 till 31-7-1995).

(3.) The defendant while resisting the suit, denied having purchased barberry roots from the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the parties were dealing in the sale and purchase of barberry roots and have been supplying the same in Lucknow (UP). The defendant was possessed of the requisite licence for sale/supply of roots in U.P. whereas the plaintiff was not possessing such a licence. The plaintiff, therefore, had approached the defendant for the sale of his barberry roots in U.P. area. The plaintiff had agreed to receive the payment of cost of such roots as and when the same would be received by the defendant. Issuance of cheque for Rs. 37,000.00 was admitted by the defendant. It was pleaded that such cheque was issued on the instance of the plaintiff, who had given an undertaking not to encash the cheque till payment was received from Lucknow by the defendant. An agreement in writing to this effect was executed between the parties. It was further pleaded that since the defendant had not received the payment from Lucknow, he was not liable to make the payment to the plaintiff. Objections as to maintainability of the suit, absence of cause of action, the suit being premature and also that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.