RAMNATH KARMAKAR Vs. HIRALAL SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule arises on the following facts: Two plaintiffs, Nos. 1 and, 2 instituted a Money Suit No. 218 of 1923 against two defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It is the Defendant No. 2 who is the applicant in the present application. This suit was for the price of the goods supplied, with interest. The first Court dismissed the suit as against Defendant No. 2 holding that he was a servant and not a partner of Defendant No. 1. He decreed the suit against Defendant No. 1, with full costs and interest at 12 per cent. per annum. On appeal to the District Court the learned Subordinate Judge modified the decree of the first Court and decreed the suit as against the Defendant No. 2 as well as Defendant No. 1 for the amount claimed with costs in both Courts. This decree is a decree for interest at the rate of 24 per cent. as claimed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) Defendant No. 2 has moved this Court in revision and this Rule has been granted. The points raised by him were first that the Court in coming to the conclusion that Defendant No. 2 was a partner of Defendant No. 1 in the business rejected certain documents holding that they were inadmissible in evidence. The documents here referred to are Ex. A., Exs., B to B-3 and Ex. C. It appears, however, that this ground is founded on a misapprehension of the real facts. The learned Judge did not hold that this evidence was inadmissible. In dealing with this part of the case he states as follows: Ex.-A a letter of invitation to one Bhupendra Nath, by Defendant No. 1 alone. So are Exs. B and B 1 two hat-chittas to Defendant No. 1 alone. Exhibit C is a copy of the plaint by Defendant No. 1, But these are no evidence against the plaintiffs. Even if the Defendant No. 1 alone figures in those documents that fact per se does not stand against the plaintiff's case, when we find it proved that the Defendant No. 2 himself formerly was a servant of the Defendant No. 1 but latterly, since 1325, he became the partner of the latter.

(3.) The learned Judge clearly has not rejected these documents as inadmissible. All that he held is that they proved nothing against the plaintiff. I am not prepared to say that as a Court of fact he was not entitled to come to that finding.