LAXMI FRUIT CO Vs. GAINDA RAM AND CO
LAWS(DLH)-1983-1-8
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 04,1983

LAXMI FRUIT COMPANY Appellant
VERSUS
GAINDA RAM AND COMPANY Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RANJEET KUMAR VS. AMIT WALIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-1-54] [RELIED ON]
SHISHPAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-2-18] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sultan Singh, J - (1.)The petitioner in this revision challenges the order dt. 2.9.81 of the Sub Judge, Delhi refusing to stay u/s 10 of the Code of civil procedure (for short, the Code) the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Briefly the facts are that the respondent M/s. Ganda Ram & Co. Delhi on 29-10-80 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8301.15 against the petitioner Laxmi Fruit Co., Mandi Dabwali alleging that the petitioner agreed to purchase fruits and vegetables from time to time and agreed to pay commission on net sale proceeds. The respondent alleges that he despatched goods of Rs. 4,09,499.22 and regularly sent Beejaks to the petitioner, that the said sum consists of purchase price of the goods i.e. fruits and vegetables, expenses incurred and commission) that the respondent received Rs. 4,02,324.07 thus leaving a balance of Rs. 7,175.15 which the petitioner failed to pay inspite of repeated demands. The respondent claims interest Rs. 1126.00 @15% p.a. In this way a total sum of Rs. 8,301.15 is claimed against the petitioner. The respondent further alleges that the statement of account in respect of all the transactions was sent which was confirmed by petitioner and vide letter dt. 26.9.79 petitioner asked the respondent to recover amounts from others on behalf of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs. 7,163.66 alleged to be due from Sidi Wale Delhi could not be recovered and therefore; the amount in suit is due from the petitioner.
(2.)In his w/s dt. 17.7.81 petitioner alleges that the suit could not proceed as the petitioner had earlier on 19.8.80 filed a suit for rendition of accounts in the Court of Sub Judge, Dabwali against the respondent, that the matters in dispute in the suit at Delhi were directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit between the parties pending at Dabwali. On merits the petitioner submits that the account of the various purchases by the respondent was never rendered, that no accounts were ever confirmed by the petitioner, that the respondent was liable to submit the original bills for the purchases made, that the respondent has debited exaggerated amounts allegedly paid on behelf of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an application u/s 10 of the Code for stay of the proceedings in the suit at Delhi.
(3.)The trial Court refused stay on the ground that the two suits were based on different causes of action as the suit instituted by the petitioner at Dabwali was for rendition of accounts while the suit instituted subsequently by the respondent for recovery at Delhi was on the basis of a settled account.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.