TARUNANGANATH BANERJI Vs. PREMNARAYANLAL RAIZADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case sues for a declaration that the ex parte decree, dated the 21st day of June 1927, and made in Suit No. 2748 of 1926, of the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, is inoperative and not binding on him, and for an order that the said decree should be set aside. He further claims a sum of Rs. 5,000 as damages suffered by him by reason of his arrest in execution of that decree. The plaintiff is a pleader of the District Court of Alipore and; ordinarily resides at No. 107/1, Mechuabazar Street. From 1 February 1926, to 18 June 1926 the plaintiff was employed as a manager of the International Commercial Co., Ltd., which had its office at No. 84-A, Clive Street, in Calcutta. On 7 May 1926 the plaintiff, as manager of the company, had, by a letter addressed to the defendant, appointed him the agent of the company at Nagpur, on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 50 from 10 May 1926.

(2.) On 21 March 1928 the plaintiff was arrested in Calcutta, by a bailiff of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes, in execution of a decree passed against him by the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur, on 21 June 1927. On the same day the plaintiff was released, on his depositing with the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, a sum of Rs. 250, under protest. In his plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that he was not served with any writ of summons in the Nagpur suit, nor had he any knowledge of the institution of the suit and he makes the case that the decree in the Nagpur suit was fraudulently obtained by the defendant on certain false representations, namely: (a) that it was the plaintiff who had appointed the defendant manager of the company, whereas, in fact, as the defendant knew, the plaintiff merely acted as an agent of the International Commercial Co., Ltd., in the matter of the appointment; (b) the defendant had been appointed manager of the company at Nagpur, whereas he had been merely appointed an agent of the company; and (c) a sum of Rs. 500 had been paid to the company by the defendant as and by way of deposit, whereas Rs. 300 only had been paid, and that for the purpose of investing in shares of the company. The plaintiff further alleged that the service of the writ of summons was fraudulently suppressed by the defendant and no notice was served on the plaintiff prior to his arrest.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had knowingly given a false address of the plaintiff in the Nagpur Court and had falsely stated in the Nagpur plaint that notice of termination of the defendant's services was given to the plaintiff on 26 August 1926. The plaintiff complains that the defendant had fraudulently procured his arrest in execution of the decree by making false allegations in a petition filed by the defendant in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, dated 20 March 1928, to the effect that the plaintiff had delayed payment and was about to leave the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, to avoid the execution of the decree.