PARTAP TALKIES PADRAUNA Vs. NARAIN TALKIES DISTRIBUTORS AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Partap Talkies Padrauna
Narain Talkies Distributors And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
Kapur, J. -
(1.) THIS is a rule directed against a decree passed by Mr. Das Raj Pahwa dated 9 -3 -1949 awarding against the Defendants a sum of Rs. 1475 with costs.
(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this Petitioner are that the Plaintiffs sent two films to a place called Padrauna, Dist. Gorakhpur, for hiring to Partap Talkies. The Rly. receipts were made out to self and when the goods arrived at the destination the Plaintiffs sent intimation to the Rly. authorities to stop the goods in transitu. Instead of carrying out the orders and directions of the consignors the Rly. authorities because of collusion or otherwise which is not quite clear handed over the goods to the Defendant Partap Talkies. A suit was then filed by then Plaintiffs against the Partap Talkies, Padrauna, District Gorakhpur, Thakur Murli Dhar Singh, Reis and Jagirdar of Gwalior, proprietor of Defendant 1 and the Governor -General in Council for recovery of Rs. 3510 as detention charges for the two films which had been sent by the Plaintiffs. In paragraph 7 of the plaint the Plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered a loss of Rs. 3,510 on account of the misconduct negligence of and wrongful conversion by the Rly. Authorities and due to the unlawful delivery of the pictures to Defendant 1 and in para. 8 they alleged the liability to pay Rs. 3510 was of Defendant 1, their reply Defendants 1 and 2 denied the allegation the Plaintiffs and pleaded that no delivery was taken if it was taken it was by a person not authorized on behalf of Defendant 1 and 2. It appears that time later the parties discharged the Rly. From all liability, so that the contest was confined to the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 and 2 i.e , the Partap Talkies and Thakur Murli Dhar Singh.
On 27 -1 -1949 the parties made a statement which may be translated as follows:
Let Mr. Brij Lal Advocate for the Rly. be appointed a referee. He may hear the evidence orally and make a statement. His statement will be binding on the parties. He should hear the evidence today.
Upon this an order was made appointing Mr. Brij Lal referee with the direction that he should hear the oral evidence that very day and file his statement the following day, and that the referee would be paid no remuneration.
(3.) FROM an appln. made by the referee to the Court dated 28 -2 -1949, it appears that part of the Plaintiffs evidence was recorded on 28 -2 -1949 and the case was then adjourned to 17 -2 -1949 which was declared a holiday, and at the request of Mr. Monohar Singh, Advocate for the Defendants the case was adjourned to 28 -2 -1949, on which date some evidence for the Plaintiffs was heard. The Defendants asked for an adjournment of the case due to illness in the family and by an order of the Court the time was extended to 9 -3 -1949. Again on the 7th of March an appln. made to the referee for adjournment on the ground that Thakur Murli Dhar Singh was ill and so was his wife and that the Mukhtar also could not come, but this appln. was refused.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.