PARAMJEET SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mandi Dabwali whereby suit filed by the respondents -plaintiffs for recovery has been decreed, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2013 passed by the learned district Judge, Sirsa whereby appeal preferred by the appellant -defendant has been dismissed. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the Court of first instance i.e. appellant as defendant and respondents as plaintiffs.
(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.13,72,585/ - on the averments that they are agriculturist by profession. The defendant was doing business as Kachha Arthia in Village Kaluana. The plaintiffs had been selling their agricultural produce through commission agency of defendant for the last 15 years and also used to deposit the sale proceeds with the defendant who used to pay them interest at the rate of 2% per month on consensual basis. On 14.08.2003, a sum of Rs.5,72,579/ - was due against the defendant. On 02.05.2005, plaintiffs Bhoop Singh and Kuldeep Singh sold wheat crop worth Rs.66,560/ - and Rs.97,280/ - through the defendant and Form 'J' was also issued to them. On 14.08.2006 defendant settled his accounts and after calculating interest on the amount of Rs.5,72,579/ -, a sum of Rs.10,91,558/ - remained outstanding against the defendant, out of which a sum of Rs.51,721/ - was paid. Thus, a sum of Rs.10,39,837/ - remained due against the defendant. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to clear the accounts but to no effect. Hence, suit for recovery was filed. Upon notice, defendant appeared and resisted the claim of the plaintiffs by filing written statement denying that he was having a kachha Arthia licence. He used to purchase the crop on behalf of the Government agencies and received commission. No amount of the plaintiffs used to remain deposited with him or any interest payable on outstanding amount was agreed between the parties. It was alleged that whatever amount of the plaintiffs was due, qua that a sale deed was executed by his son Rakesh Kumar and nephew Munish Kumar in favour of Bhal Singh (plaintiff No.3) with the consent of parties as only Bhal Singh was having a residence proof of Rajasthan. After execution of sale deed, no amount remained outstanding against defendant. Said Bhal Singh did not distribute the amount amongst the other plaintiffs due to which a dispute arose between them. Thereafter, one Sohan Lal filed a complaint against Bhal Singh on the basis of which FIR was registered against him as certificate produced by him was found false and there was apprehension that land would revert back to the vendors. It was further alleged that signatures of the defendant were taken on entries dated 14.08.2003 showing the amount outstanding, levying interest on it. No account was settled on 14.08.2006 and all the documents were result of forgery. Rest of the averments in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication: - "i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.13,72,585/ - from the defendant along with interest? OPP ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation? OPD iv) Relief."
(3.) THE Court of first instance afforded opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence and thereafter, recorded issue -wise findings and ultimately, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2012. Against that, appeal was preferred which has also been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2013. Hence, this second appeal.;