NARAIN DAS Vs. FIRM GHASI RAM GOJAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Bulandshahr which reversed a decree of the learned Munsif of Khurja. The plaintiff is a firm of commission agents. It was alleged in the plaint that the firm suffered a loss of Rs. 750-9-3 on behalf of the defendants in the purchase and storage of Bejar under the instructions of the defendants who owned a joint family firm known as Bhola Nath Narain Das. The claim was contested on various grounds by the defendants. The trial Court dismissed the claim but on appeal the decree of the Court of first instance was reversed and the suit was decreed for the entire amount against Narain Das and for Rs. 466-14-0 against the remaining defendants. The defendants have now come to this Court in appeal.

(2.) The first point argued on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Civil Judge has erred in passing a decree for the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff against Narain Das. It is contended that at the worst a decree for Rs. 466-14-0 could be passed as the Court found that the plaintiff suffered a loss to this extent only. It appears that during the pendency of the suit before the learned Munsif on 5 March 1934 Narain Das, one of the defendants, made a statement that if Hargu Lal plaintiff stated that Narain Das, defendant 2, was also a party to the agreement the suit may be decreed against him. Hargu Lal was examined on oath and stated that Narain Das was also a party to the agreement. On the basis of this statement, the suit for Rs. 750-9-3 was decreed against him. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the statement of Narain Das by itself does not amount to an adjustment of the suit. It was argued that the decision of the case against Narain Das depended on the statement of Hargu Lal. If Hargu Lal declined to make any statement no action could be taken against Narain Das. It was only after Hargu Lal had made a statement that the trial Court could take action on it. As the statement of Hargu Lal disposed of only one of the several issues involved in the suit, counsel urged that it was not proper for the learned Civil Judge to have decreed the entire claim against Narain Das. The binding nature of statements of this description has been the subject of discussion in numerous cases in this as well as other High Courts. The controversy was set at rest by the decision of the Full Bench case in Akbari Begam V/s. Rahmat Husain . The learned Chief Justice after a review of the case law on the subject came to the following conclusion: In my opinion the true basis of the binding character of such an agreement is that the original contract to abide by the statement of a third person is perfected into an adjustment of the claim in terms of the statement made, as soon as the referee makes the statement. After that stage, neither party can resile from the agreement because the claim has been duly adjusted, and it has become the duty of the Court not only to record it, but also to pass a decree in terms of it.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants very properly has not questioned the authority of the Court to accept the statement of Hargu Lal who was one of the plaintiffs in the suit, as binding on Narain Das. What he contends is that the statement of Hargu Lal disposes of only one of the issues in the case and that it was the duty of the Court to have recorded evidence in order to find out what was the correct amount for which the suit ought to be decreed against Narain Das. In my judgment the contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is untenable. According to the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code when a defendant appears in response to a summons he may either contest the suit or admit the claim. In the present case Narain Das did not adopt either of these two courses. He offered to bind himself by the statement of Hargu Lal plaintiff. When Hargu Lal made the statement it follows that the Court was entitled to decree the claim against Narain Das, as the only condition laid down by him in his statement had been fulfilled. There was no reservation in the statement of Narain Das to the effect that only a part of the claim was to be decreed. The claim was for Rs. 750- 9-3 and the Court had no option but to award the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants. If the Court were to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it might lead to most anomalous consequences. For instance, if the Court was not satisfied with the evidence of the plaintiff as to the amount of damages it would have been necessary to dismiss the suit altogether, but in view of the statement of Narain Das this course was not open to the Court. The suit had to be decreed in its entirety and not in part. In my judgment, the learned Civil Judge has come to a right conclusion in accepting the statement of Hargu Lal as an adjustment of the claim and passing a decree for Rs. 750-9.3 against Narain Das.