AJAY RAMPRASAD RUIA Vs. MAJITHIA CONSTRUCTIONS CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff has taken out Summons for Judgment against defendants 7, 8 and 9. The defendants have filed their affidavit in reply. They have raised various contentions. One of the contention is that on the date the Bill of Exchange was signed by defendant No.4 he was not a partner of the firm as he had retired from the firm from 15th May, 1983 pursuant to the Deed of Retirement dated 16th May, 1983. The fact that the defendant No.4 has retired from the partnership has been recorded in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Firms. Prima facie, therefore, the contesting defendants have been able to show that the defendant No.4 could not have bound the firm on the date he signed the various bills of exchanges. There are other defences pertaining to limitation and failure by the plaintiff to take out Summons for Judgment within six months of the defendants filing their appearance.

(2.) IN view of the fact that the contesting defendants have made out a strong prima facie case that they are not liable for the acts of the defendant No.4 and which raise serious triable issues in the suit the defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to defend. In the light of that the following order: