NATHMAL NENMAL A FIRM BOMBAY Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil First Appeal on behalf of a firm Nathmal Nenmal carrying on business at 45-47, Champagali, Bombay against the judgment and. decree of the district Judge, Pali dismissing the suit filed by it against Mangilal and Milapchand minor sons of Meghraj, and Chhogalal for the recovery of Rs. 16,515-15-0.

(2.) THE case set out by the plaintiff is that it was a registered partnership firm carrying on business at Bombay and the names of the partners of the plaintiff firm were mentioned in the Register of Firms, Bombay. Chhogalal defendant and meghraj father of the minor defendants Mangilal and Milap Chand also carried on business at Bombay under the name and style of H. Chhogalal and Brothers. There were dealings between these two firms and the defendant Chhogalal had executed a khata on behalf of the firm in favour of the plaintiff firm for Rs. 15,000/-/-on Poh Sudi Poonam Sambat 2006, corresponding to the 4th of January 1950. After that date Rs. 1,000/-/' were paid by the defendants towards the khafta and the balance remained un-paid in spite of notices to the Firm H. Chhogalal and brothers. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 16,515-15-0 inclusive of interest and other expenses. The suit was filed on the 9th of December. 1952, in the court of the district Judge, Pali. The suit was contested on behalf of Mangilal and Milap Chand by their guardian Bhiki Bai, widow of Meghraj. The defence is denial of the case set up by the plaintiff. Chhogalal did not put in appearance and the case proceeded ex parte against him.

(3.) ALONG with the Plaint the plaintiff filed an uncertified copy of the entry in the register of Firms which showed that at the time of the filing at the suit Hirachand, meghaji Bhoormal Hira-chand, Kesharijnal Hirachand, Vanechand Meghaji and shankerlal Vajangi were the partners of the firm. It may be mentioned that no endorsement of the filing of this document was made in the plaint. In the writen statement filed on behalf of the contesting defendants it was mentioned that the plaintiff had filed the suit on behalf of the firm National Nenmal and the names of the partners should be disclosed. A replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff in paragraph 12 of which the names of the four persons namely Hirachand, kesharimal, Bhoormal and Chunnilal were disclosed as partners of the firm. It may be mentioned that according to the entry in the register of firms of these persons, chunnilal had ceased to be a partner on the 21st of October 1949, and there were two other partners-Several issues were framed and the evidence of the parties was recorded. Bhoormal one of the Partners of the plaintiff firm, who had signed the plaint and presented it in the court, was examined as witness of the plaintiff on 7th December 1954. He produced a certified copy of the entry in the Register of Firms and it was marked Ex- P/35. In cross-examination he stalled that the plaintiff Firm carried on business even at the time of the filing of the written statement and Hirachand and Bhoormal were also partners in the firm. Thereafter the evidence on behalf of the defendants was recorded and closed.