Bajpai, J - (1.) This is a, plaintiffs appeal and the facts which have given rise to this appeal may be stated : The firm of Sansarchand Lachhman Das has two branches, one at Saharanpur and the other at Hoshiarpur. On 10 January 1927, Dina Nath sued the Saharanpur firm in the Calcutta High Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,301. This suit was numbered as 72 of 1927. The record of the Calcutta case was before the Court below but in spite of attempts made by parties the record could not come to this Court. The plaintiff however has filed the plaint of the suit and a perusal of the same shows that Dina Nath's claim was formulated in the following way: He alleged that between 2 May, 1926, and 11 October 1926, he supplied goods of the value of Rupees 10,502-11-0 to Sansarchand Lachhman Das and again between 14 August 1926, and 11 October 1926, the defendant took delivery of four wagons of soft molasses of the value of Rupees 3,824-13-9 although the defendant had agreed to take delivery of 23 wagons. The total price for the goods actually taken delivery of by Sansarchand Lachhmandas thus came to Rupees 14,327-8-9. To this was added a sum of Rs. 273-7-3 by way of interest. It was then alleged that because of the fact that the defendant did not take delivery of nineteen wagons of soft molasses although he had agreed to that effect, Dina Nath suffered a loss of Rs. 1,200. Thus the claim was for the recovery of Rs. 4,301. On 27 February 1927, this suit was shelved by the Calcutta High Court and the exact reasons for this procedure are not quite apparent. It appears however from certain statements made by counsel before me that Dina Nath, because of certain representations made by a relation of Sansarchand, thought that this matter as well as a certain other matter had been compromised and some payments under the compromise had been made. Dina Nath therefore on 15 January 1930, filed a suit in the Small Cause Court at Calcutta for Rs. 395-2- 3 which according to him was the balance due to him under the compromise in respect of the two matters. Sansarchand Lachhmandas on 15 February 1930, denied that there was any compromise or that the compromise was effected by an authorised person and indeed they alleged that there was an overpayment made by them. Upon this Dina Nath withdrew his suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on 10 April 1930.
(2.) On 5 March 1930 Sansarchand Lachhmandas filed suit No. 729 of 1930 in the Court of small causes at Saharanpur against Dina Nath for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 196-10-0. This claim was formulated in the following manner: It was alleged by them that they purchased goods of the value of Rs. 14,303-6-0 and not of Rs. 14.327-8-9 as alleged by Dina Nath and that they made payments to the extent of Rs. 14,500. This sum of Rs. 14,500 is composed of the Rupees 11,500 admitted by Dina Nath in his suit No. 72 of 1927 and Rs. 3,000 said to have been paid later on after the institution of the suit. Sansarchand's case therefore was that he made an over-payment of Rupees 196-10-0. This suit was decreed ex parte by the Small Cause Court Judge at Saharanpur on 12 June 1930, and the decree has been satisfied.
(3.) Dina Nath then took some proceedings in the Calcutta High Court for the revival of his suit No. 72 of 1927. What exactly these proceedings were is not quite known but it appears from the decree of the Calcutta High Court filed on the record of this suit that Dina Nath's claim was decreed for Rs. 1,001 with interest and costs. It is obvious how this sum was arrived at. Dina Nath's claim was originally for Rs. 4,301. Dina Nath admitted that subsequent to the institution of the suit a sum of Rupees 3,300 was paid by Sansarchand Lachhmandas and therefore his claim for Rs. 1,001 was still outstanding and his suit was decreed ex parte for this amount.;