DHALIWAL TRADING AGENCY Vs. VARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Varinder Singh filed suit under Order 37, Rule 2, CPC for the recovery of Rs. 18,36,000 i.e. Rs. 18,00,000 as principal plus Rs. 36,000 as interest calculated @ 2 per cent per month with effect from 25/10/1999 to 25/11/1999 on the allegations that Avtar Singh had issued cheque numbering 627074 dated 25/10/1999 for Rs. 9 lakhs and that Dalbir Singh had issued cheque numbering 627073 dated 25/10/1999 for Rs. 9 lakhs as partners of defendant No. 1 firm M/s Dhaliwal Trading Agency, Doaraha Mandi.

(2.) M/s Dhaliwal Trading Agency, Doaraha Mandi defendant No. 1 and Dalbir Singh defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3, CPC for leave to defend the suit unconditionally saying that M/s Dhaliwal Trading Agency, Doaraha Mandi never took any loan from the plaintiff. No cheque was issued. Avtar Singh had expired on 6.5.1999, as such, question of issue of any cheque numbering 627074 by Avtar Singh could not arise. It was also alleged that there was no logic in issuing two cheques of the same date signed by two different persons. Had the defendants taken any loan from the plaintiff, they would have issued one cheque for Rs. 18 lakhs to the plaintiff. The account of the defendant firm was to be operated as per the partnership deed as agreed upon in the terms and conditions incorporated in the partnership deed and for that purpose the defendants had been keeping the cheque book signed by the partners so that the other partners could use it in his absence. It was alleged that the plaintiff, in connivance with some employee of the defendant firm had stolen the cheques and have filled in the cheques for such a huge amount and filed the present suit on false and frivolous grounds. Cheques bear signatures only whereas the entire cheques i.e. the name of the plaintiff and the account has been filled in by some other person. Plaintiff in connivance with the employees of the defendants by fraudulent means succeeded in getting hold of the blank cheques and filed the present suit on false and frivolous grounds. Defendant has a good defence to make, as such, he should be allowed leave to defend the suit unconditionally.

(3.) Defendant No. 3 Kulwant Kaur wife of Dalbir Singh filed an application under Order 37, Rule 3, CPC seeking leave to defend the suit saying that earlier the applicant was partner in firm M/s Dhaliwal Trading Agency, Doaraha Mandi. Thereafter, she retired from the firm and a new partnership deed was executed on 1.4.1999 and the new partners were included in the firm. She has retired from the firm since 31.3.1999 and has no concern with the firm M/s Dhaliwal Trading Agency, Doaraha Mandi and all the assets and liabilities of the firm were taken over by the continuing partners as the accounts were settled at that time and as such she is not necessary party in the suit. At the time, when she was partner in the firm, the firm had not taken any loan from the plaintiff.