- (1.) THIS is an appeal by joint Hindu family firm Kesar Dasrajan Singh against a decree passed by a Court at Karnal for Rs. 12,280/- and costs in favour of the respondent Seth Parma Nand.
(2.) THE suit was instituted by Parma Nand in August 1949 for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as principal and Rs. 2,280/- as interest on the basis of a pronote executed by two members of the defendant-firm, Rajan Singh and Kesar Das, on 25-1-1947 at Bannu (N. W. F. P.) where the parties then resided and carried on business. In a statement made by Rajan Singh defendant before issues were framed, the execution of the pronote by himself and his father Kesar Das was admitted, and it has never been pleaded that the pronote was without consideration. Apart from one or two technical points which have not now been pressed, the defence was based entirely on the following facts. The plaintiff instituted a suit based on this very pronote and claiming the sum then due under it in the Court of the Senior subordinate Judge at Bannu on the 29lh of July 1947. This suit was dismissed by mr. Daood Khan by his order dated 30-10-1947 which reads- "counsel for the plaintiff is present. Counsel for the defendants is also present. In compliance with the previous order, the plaintiff's counsel has not so far produced the original pronote for perusal of the defendants. On the other hand he has produced a telegram stating that the plaintiff cannot produce the pronote either through post Or a particular messenger. The plaintiff should have handed over the pronote to his counsel or some agent. There does not exist any solid ground for further adjournment. Under Order 11, Rule 15, Civil P. C. , the plaintiff not having now produced the pronote, he will not he allowed to produce it in this case. For this reason, as the present suit is on the basis of the said pronote, the plaintiff will not even be able to prove it in any other manner. Under these circumstances, until the original pronote is produced, we cannot pursue this suit any further. Hence this suit is dismissed with costs under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil P. C. "
(3.) THE defendant's case is that this order dismissing the plaintiff's suit based on the same pro-note on which the present suit is based constitutes a bar to the present suit by res judicata.;