SATISH SHARMA Vs. HEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, (P.O., Fast Track Court), Solan, H.P. dated 3.12.2004 in Civil Suit No. 7 FT/1 of 2004/99.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this regular first appeal are that the appellant -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,64,875/ - against the respondents -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). According to the averments made in the plaint, defendant No. 1 entered into partnership with the plaintiff for carrying on a business of supplying vehicles on hire basis to N.J.P.C. One Anoop Sharma, son of defendant No. 1, was also joined as a partner. Partnership in the name and style of M/s. Cane Craft Cottage Industries came into existence. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had their share of profit and loss to the extent of 40% each and share of Anoop Sharma was 20%. The partnership came into existence on 31.8.1996. For the purpose of supplying the vehicles on hire to N.J.P.C., funds were required to purchase vehicles. Negotiations with M/s. Anagram Finance Limited Company took place. A sum of Rs. 6,72,500/ - was required to be deposited with M/s. Anagram Finance Limited Company for getting the vehicles financed. The plaintiff made a total payment of Rs. 2,95,000/ - to defendant No. 1 who was entrusted with job of raising finances and to deal with the N.J.P.C. The payments were acknowledged by defendant No. 1 vide receipt dated 25.9.1996, however, defendant No. 1 failed to contribute his share of the marginal money. Another sum of Rs. 65,000/ - was required to be deposited with N.J.P.C. as earnest money. Defendant No. 1 failed to deposit earnest money with N.J.P.C. Since the vehicles could not be arranged, the N.J.P.C., terminated the contract vide letter dated 31.1.1997.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No. 1. Preliminary objection was taken that the suit was not maintainable. According to him, the share contributed to the partnership firm could not be claimed by way of suit for recovery. The provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 were to be followed. He has denied that any earnest money was required to be deposited with N.J.P.C., though it was admitted that the partnership in the name and style of Cane Craft Cottage Industry came into existence. Defendant No. 1 also denied that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/ -, 70,000/ -, 1,00,000/ - and Rs. 65,000/ - to him. He denied the acknowledgment of receipt.