- (1.) This is a defendants' revision petition against the order dated 19th February, 1969, passed by the learned Subordinate Jude, 1st Class, Amritsar, rejecting their prayer for framing additional issues in their case.
(2.) Firm Panna Lal Piara Lal, which carries on business at Amritsar, brought a suit under the provisions of Order 37 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, against D.D. Ashok Kumar and D.D. Arora, partner of Messrs D.D. Ashok Kumar, for the recovery of certain amount on the basis of Hundis drawn by the plaintiffs and accepted by the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants had been purchasing textile goods from them and against their price, the plaintiff-firm had drawn four Hundis which were accepted by the defendants. A part of the amount due had been paid by the defendants and the suit filed was regarding the balance.
(3.) When summons were issued to the defendants, they made an application on 26th July, 1967, under Order 37 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, before the trial Court for leave to appear and defend the suit. In the said application, amongst other matter, they raised the following plea - "That the Hundis in suit were admittedly drawn with respect to the goods sold and supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The cases of the goods when opened after delivery, the contents thereof were found not to be in accordance with the goods for which the order was placed by the defendants with the plaintiffs and was found very much defective as being mis-printed. The plaintiffs, through their broker, have assured the defendants to allow a rebate to the defendants for the goods being defective and not being according to the order paced by the defendants with the plaintiffs. In spite of best efforts of the defendants, the plaintiffs have not settled the rebate amount nor got back the defective goods. Therefore, the defendants were justified in withholding the payment of the Hundis in suit." In the written statement filed on 16th August, 1967, by the defendants, a similar plea was taken but in the following words :- The plaintiffs through their broker had assured the defendants to allow defendants rebates for such defective goods and being not in accordance with the order placed. As the plaintiffs did not yet get the rebate settled, the defective goods are still lying with the defendants and, as such, some payment due to the plaintiffs on account of the goods supplied was justly withheld by the defendants. If the plaintiffs agree to take back the defective goods and/or goods not in accordance with the order, or grant reasonable rebate to the defendants for the same, the defendants are ready to pay the amount which may be found due to the plaintiffs in the account.";