PANNAJI DEVI CHAND, A MARWADI FIRM AND COMPANY, CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING PARTNERS, PUNNAMCHAND Vs. FIRM OF SENAJI KAPUR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff firm against the defendant firm claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages which the plaintiffs alleged they sustained by reason of the defendants having wrongfully attached before judgment the properties in the defendant firm.

(2.) The plaintiffs and the defendants were merchants who were carrying on business in partnership. The plaintiffs were carrying on business at Bellary and the defendants were carrying on business at Gadag. It is alleged that the plaintiffs filed a suit in the Bellary District Court for winding up the business and for taking accounts. The defendants brought a suit against the plaintiffs and two other firms in the Court of the 1 Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar for a breach of contract claiming Rs. three lakhs twelve thousand odd. The defendants filed an affidavit on the 30 of March, 1920, and applied for attachment before judgment of certain properties of the plaintiffs in Bellary and obtained a conditional order. The Subordinate Tudge after hearing the parties confirmed the attachment before judgment on the 21 of April, 1920, and ordered the plaintiffs to give security on failure of which the attachment was to continue. It is alleged in the plaint that both in getting this order and in carrying out the attachment the defendants were guilty of various acts of misconduct. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court of Bombay against the order of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge holding that the defendants did not establish any proper grounds for the attachment before judgment. The judgment of the Bombay High Court is reported in Sennaji Kapur Chand V/s. Pannaji Devichand (1921) I.L.R. 46 B. 431.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement stating that they acted bona fide They denied that in carrying out the attachment they acted in any illegal manner as alleged in the plaint. They denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any damages and stated that the suit was barred by limitation.