HAZUR SINGH Vs. BEHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgement dated Janu-ary 27, 1979, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the plaintiff's suit was decreed against the appel-lant.

(2.) Plaintiff M/s. Behari Lal Banwari Lal, Gramin Market, Sri Ganganagar, filed a suit for declaration and recovery of the bus along with the damages of Rs. 13,000.00 from the defendant No. 1 and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 20,000.00 against the defen-dants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, viz., Hazoor Singh, Gurdayal Singh and Gurlabh Singh. The case, as set-up in the plaint, is that on 2/07/1969, under a hire-purchase agreement, the plaintiff delivered his bus No. RJK 6794 to the defendant No. 2 Hazoor Singh. The defendant No. 3 Gurdial Singh and No. 4 Gurlabh Singh stood sureties for the defen-dant No. 2. It was, inter alia, agreed that Hazoor Singh, in all, will pay Rs. 16,800.00 in twelve instalments of Rs. 1,400.00 each towards the price of the bus. It was, also, agreed that till the whole amount is paid, the owner-ship of the bus will remain with the defendant No. 2. It was further agreed that in case of default in the payment of instalments, the plaintiff will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum and will, also, have a right to discern the contract and take back the possession of the bus. Defendant Hazoor Singh did not make payment of any instalment and paid only Rs. 500.00 on December 17, 1969, and, therefore, the plaintiff, on 25/03/1970, cancelled the agreement and approached the defendant No. 2 to regain the possession of the bus. At that time, the plaintiff was informed that the vehicle has already been attached by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (R.P.G.T.), Sri Ganganagar, on 2/01/1970, against certain tax dues of Buses Nos. RJK 3107 and RJK 5202 belong-ing to New India Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. The case of the plaintiff, further, is that after the seizure of the bus, the bus was kept in open by the respondent No. 1 and as it was exposed to sun, air and shower and, there-fore, its tyres, tubes, window glasses and the body were damaged, which resulted in a total damages of about Rs. 10,500.00. The plaintiff, also, claimed a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 as loss of interest. The suit was contested by all the defendants. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit mainly on the ground that there was no hire-purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 and it was simply a case of advancement of loan by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2 for the purchase of the bus and as Hazoor Singh (Defendant No. 2) was the registered owner of the bus and, therefore, the bus was attached by the respondent No. 1 for the realization of the amount of arrears of tax outstanding against the defendant No. 2. The case of the defen-dants Nos. 3 and 4, as set-out in their respec-tive written statements, was that though the defendant No. 2 took the bus under a hire-purchase agreement from the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 16,800.00 and the respon-dents Nos. 3 and 4 stood sureties for him, but as the defendant No. 2 did not pay the monthly instalments and, therefore, the con-tract stood rescinded on 2/08/1969 itself and if the bus is thereafter attached by the defendant No. 1 then they are not liable for it. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned trial Court framed eight issues. Issue No. 7 was with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, the trial Court, by its order dated 22/04/1974, decided this issue as preliminary issue and held that the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff, in support of its case, examined four witnesses and placed on record seven documents. Ex. 1(c) is the Entry from the Register of the Registrar of Firms, Ex. 2(c) is the Certificate of Registration and Fitness of the bus No. RJK 6794, Ex. 3(c) is the hire-purchase agreement, Ex. 4(c) is the letter dated 14/09/1971, by which the plaintiff was informed that its objections have been rejected. Ex. 5(c) is the notice dated 21/06/1971, under S. 80, C.P.C. given by the plaintiff to the defendants and Ex. 6(c) and Ex. 7(c) are the two A. D. receipts. The defendant No. 2, in support of his case, examined two witnesses only and did not produce any document, while the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, also, examined two witnesses and placed on record one document Ex. A.1 - the Auction Report. The learned trial Court, by its decree and judgement dated 27/01/1979, decreed the plaintiff's suit against the defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4/1 to 4/4 for an amount of Rs. 20,000.00 -(Rs. 16,300/- as Principal and Rs. 3,700.00 as interest) along with 12% pendente lite and future interest and dismissed the suit against the defendant No. 1, the State of Rajasthan. It is against this decree and judgement dated 27/01/1979, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, that the defendant No. 2 Hazoor Singh has preferred this appeal. No appeal or cross-objections were filed by the plaintiff or by the State. Even the plaintiff did not appear in spite of service of notice.