RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J - (1.) THE plaintiffs/appellants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 04,1996 passed by the trial Court dismissing their suit for recovery of Rs. 27,000/-, which was affirmed in appeal by the first Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated March 01,2001.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 27,000/- on February 01,1988 alleging therein that plaintiff No. 2 is carrying business of commission agent under the name and style of plaintiff No. 1. In order to attract customers, the plaintiffs had been advancing money to them which was adjustable against prices of goods sold to the plaintiffs or through their agents. It is further averred that the defendant (Kashmir Singh) availed following facilities from the plaintiff :- Date of advance Amount 4.5.1987 Rs. 22,000/- 15.7.1987 1,200/- 17.10.1987 300/- 30.10.1987 20/- It is further averred that the aforesaid entries in the books of account have been thumb marked by the defendant and according to the custom prevalent in the local market at Kaithal, he was liable to pay interest @ 1.5% per mensum from the date of advance. The plaintiffs, thus, claimed an amount of Rs. 23,520/- on account of principal and Rs. 3480/- on account of interest, total amounting to Rs. 27,000/- from the defendant.
(3.) IN the written statement, the defendant alleged that plaintiff No. 1 was unregistered firm; one of the partners i.e. Amar Nath had died in the month of August, 1987; plaintiff No. 2 is not the sole owner of plaintiff No. 1 because Amar Nath was survived by sons and daughters who have not been impleaded as parties, therefore, the suit is incompetent. On merits, the averments made in para 3 of the plaint were denied .;