SHAM SUNDER Vs. HARI DEV BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope and extent of liability of a defendant on the plea that he was not a partner of the partnership concern, in a suit for recovery is the precise and pertinent question that falls for determination in the present case.

(2.) In order to examine the merits of the respective contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties in support or against the above proposition, reference to basic facts would be necessary. Shri Hari Dev Bansal filed a suit for recovery against M/s Lal Chand Roshan Lal and others for a sum of Rs. 38,929.15 for the supply of printed containers as per the agreed rate between the parties. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint read as under:-

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 6 filed a joint written statement in reply to the plaint. In paragraph No. 5 of the written statement it was specifically admitted that the defendant firm purchased the tin container from the plaintiff on cash basis. However, the liability to pay any amount or balance amount was disputed. While taking various preliminary objections including locus-standi to file the suit, defendant No. 2 being not a partner of defendant No. 1, this suit being bad for misjoinder of parties, being time barred and also with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court were taken. However, reply to paragraph 2 and 4 of the plaint makes an interesting reading:-