- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed, a money Suit for recovery of Rs. 7,978. 85 alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 2. 5% per mensem on the basis of the entries made in the Bahi Khata alleged to have been kept in the ordinary course of business.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was that it was a registered partnership firm carrying on its commission agents business at Naya Bazar, Bahjoi, District Moradabad; and that the defendant No. 1 in the said Suit was also a registered firm and the defendants No. 2 to 6 in the said Suit were its owners and partners; and that the defendant firm borrowed different sums on various dates, totalling Rs. 4,453/-, and it agreed to repay the sum alongwith the interest at the agreed rate; and that these advances were entered in the Bahi Khatas of the plaintiff-firm; and that the Bahi Khatas were maintained in the regular course of business in accordance with the Mahajani system; and that the extracts of the Bahi Khatas were filed on record. It was, inter alia, further alleged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that the defendants paid Rs. 1,486. 50 on different dates to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, and further paid Rs. 597/- on 16. 11. 1968 through a Hundi of Gwaliar M/s Mukut Beharilal Pooran Chand; and that a total amount of Rs. 2,083. 50 was paid by the defendants which was also entered in the Bahi Khatas; and that the defendants did not pay the balance despite repeated demands. The said Suit was registered as Original Suit No. 49 of 1972.
(3.) THE defendants Nos. 1 to 6 contested the said Suit on various grounds. It was, inter alia, alleged that the plaintiff-firm was not registered and the Suit was barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act; and that Deoki Nandan alone was not entitled to sue; and that the Bahi Khatas of the plaintiff-firm were not maintained in Mahajani system; and that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had no cause of action to sue. The defendants, inter alia, categorically denied to have borrowed any amount from the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 prior to 16. 11. 1968.;