BANSHIDHAR SATYA NARAIN Vs. MOTI LAL SHANKER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil first appeal under Sec. 96 CPC has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short, 'the defendants) against the judgment and decree dt.5/3/2003 passed by Additional District Judge No.6 Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.10/1996 titled as M/s. Moti Lal Shanker vs. M/s. Banshidhar Satya Narain and anr. whereby respondent-plaintiff's (for short, 'the plaintiff') the plaintiff suit for recovery of money has been decreed and counter claim of the defendants has been dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 13/5/1996 for recovery of Rs.2,60,375.58 with interest @ 2.5% per mensem w.e.f. 13/3/1993. Plaintiff averred in suit that Manju S. Chitlangia is the sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and defendant No.2 is a partner of the firm. On 13/3/93 twice the defendants borrowed sugar bags from the plaintiff under bill valued Rs.1,31,231.76 and Rs.1,29,183.82. Goods along with bill were sent to the defendants but the defendants did not pay the amount. In lieu of total outstanding amount of Rs.2,60,375.58, the defendants gave cheque of Rs.50,000.00 to the plaintiff, which on being presented in the bank, was returned with remark 'insufficent fund'. Thereafter, the defendants again issued two cheques No.058070 dt. 16/4/93 and cheque No.058072 dt. 1/5/93 against outstanding amount of Rs.2,60,375.58. On being presented, the said cheques in the bank, they were again dishonoured. Registered notice dt.27/5/1993 was sent to the defendants but they did not make the payment.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. It was averred that the defendants had not borrowed any sugar bag from the plaintiff firm on 13/3/1993 they also denied to have received bills they also averred that two cheques as aforesaid, were given the plaintiff on account of necessity of funds shown by the plaintiff. Defendants further averred in the written statement that current open account was not settled after 1/4/92.