CHOTTEYLAL Vs. HARI KISHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This in an appeal by Chotteylal defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City in a suit for the recovery of Rs, 2120/- on a pronote. The suit was originally filed by Harikishendass respondent 1 against the appellant Chottelal on the allegations that a pronote for Rs. 2000/- was executed by the appellant in favour of respondent 2 Kishenchand Lekhraj on 1-10-1948. The consideration was, however, really paid by Harikishendass and it was for his benefit that the pronote was executed. Kishenchand was made a defendant pro forma in the suit. A prayer was made for the recovery of Rs. 2000/- principal and Rs. 120/-interest i.e. for the total sum of Rs. 2120/-. This suit was filed on 20-51949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City.

(2.) The principal respondent Chotteylal filed his written statement pleading that the pronote in suit was inadmissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped. It was further pleaded that no suit could be filed by Harikishendass who was the holder of the pronote in suit. It was also pleaded that all the partners of the firm Kishenchand Lekhraj were parties to the suit and, therefore, it was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. Lastly, it was pleaded that as the pronote did not bear any interest, no interest could be charged.

(3.) After the above written statement had been filed, an application was made by Harikishendass plaintiff on 16-1-1950 and it was prayed that the pro forma respondent Kishen Chand Lekhraj be transposed as plaintiff and the plaint be amended accordingly. On behalf of Kishenchand Lekhraj, one Ishardass representing himself to be Mukhtaram of Kishenchand Lekhraj consented to the transposition of the pro forma defendant as plaintiff 2. The principal defendant Chotteylal too raised no objection and only prayed for costs. The Court awarding Rs. 14/- as costs to the principal defendant Chotteylal made the required amendment and transposed Kishenchand Lekhraj as plaintiff 2. Ultimately the first Court held that the pronote in suit was insufficiently stamped and so no suit could be decreed in favour of Kishenehand Lekhraj on the basis of the pronote. Harikishendass was, however, given a decree for Rs. 2080/- on the original cause of action.