RAJENDRA ENTERPRISES Vs. ROOP NARAIN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 under Section 115 of CPC, challenging the order dated 10.12.2003, passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Appeal No.50/2000, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment & decree dated 09.11.2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Jaipur City Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.34/1998.

(2.) The respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed the suit against the present petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 seeking recovery of Rs.17,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 14.10.1997 till the payment, alleging interalia that the plaintiff was the owner of the truck being No.RJ-02-G-0632 and was plying the same on hire basis. According to the respondent No.1-plaintiff, the petitioner-defendant No.1 was the businessman, and was sending his goods purchased by him to the places outside the Rajasthan through his truck. The defendant No.2 was the transport company, and the defendant Nos.3 & 4 were the businessmen dealing in edible oil. It was further case of the respondent No.1-plaintiff that the petitioner-defendant No.1 wanted to send his goods namely mustard oil lying with the defendant No.4, to the defendant No.3 at Tejpur, and therefore the petitioner agreed to pay hire charges of Rs.31,762/- to the respondent-plaintiff for transporting the goods from Niwai to Tejpur. The bill, bilti and challan were also delivered by the petitioner, alongwith the payment of Rs.8,000/- towards the part payment of the hire charges to the truck driver of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 had assured that the balance of the hire charges shall be paid to the driver by the defendant No.3 at the time of delivery of oil, however, though the oil was delivered at Tejpur, the defendant No.3 deducted the amount of Rs.17,000/- from the hire charges to be paid to the plaintiff on the ground that there was short delivery of oil. Thus, according to the respondent No.1-plaintiff, the said amount of Rs.17,000/- was not paid by the defendant No.1, and the other defendants, and the notice given by the plaintiff was also not replied to, and therefore, the suit was filed. The said suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant No.1, denying the allegations made against him, and further contending interalia that the oil was sold by the defendant No.4 to defendant No.3, and was transported by the defendant No.2, and the defendant No.1 was not the agent of any of the parties, and therefore was not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the plaintiff. The other defendants did not file any written statement.

(3.) The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, passed the decree against the defendant Nos 1 & 3 i.e. the present petitioner and the respondent No.3, directing them to pay sum of Rs.17,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 14.10.1997 till payment. The said decree was challenged by the present petitioner before the appellate court, by filing the appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate court vide the impugned order dated 09.11.2000. The suit amount being less than 25,000/-, the petitioner instead of preferring second appeal, has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of CPC.