SUNIL KUMAR GARG - (1.) This is a first appeal filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh on 27-4-1982, by which the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for Rs. 20,000.00 (Rs. 14,796.00 principal amount and Rs. 5204.00 interest) against the appellants-defendants and also against the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 6) ex parte.
(2.) This first appeal arises in the following circumstances :- The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the appellants-defendants on 1-11-1977 amended on 5-10-1981 for recovery of Rs. 14,796/- principal amount and Rs. 5204/- interest stating that the plaintiff-respondent-firm is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act and Shankarlal is one of the partners of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 firm, who is acquainted with the facts of the case. The appellant-defendant No. 1 is also a registered firm and the plaintiff-respondent firm had money dealings as well as sale and purchase of goods with the appellant-defendant No. 1 firm with effect from 5-12-1973 to 12-9-1975 and so many transactions were held between both the firms and ultimately, upto 12-9-1975, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 14,796 principal amount and Rs. 5204/- interest) was found due against the appellants-defendants and for the recovery of the said amount, this suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against the appellants-defendants. Note :- That during the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 firm amended its pleadings and one para 19 was added stating that Om Prakash, who is one of the partners of the appellant-defendant No. 1 firm issued a cheque (Ex. 53) of Rs. 5,000/- on 11-2-1975 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 acknowledging that amount was due in favour of the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 firm and this cheque was also entered in the account book of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 firm and thus, from this acknowledgment, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 should be treated within limitation. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was contested by the defendants-appellants by filing a written statement on 12-1-1979 amended on 31-10-1981 on various grounds, but the main plea of the defendants-appellants is that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is time-barred and no limitation from the cheque (Ex. 53) issued by Om Prakash, one of the partners of the appellant-defendant No. 1 firm, can be claimed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, as Om Prakash has no authority to issue cheque and whatever cheque has been issued by Om Prakash, it was in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the appellant-defendant No. 1 firm and furthermore, it is stated that the interest which has been charged by the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 firm is excessive. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 30-9-1980 and one more issue was added on 4-12-1981: During the proceedings in the lower Court, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 firm as well as on behalf of the defendants-appellants were produced and some documents were got exhibited by the parties. After weighing the evidence of both the sides, the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh decided the above issues in the following manner through his judgment dated 27-4-1982 : Issues Nos. 1 and 2 These issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and against the appellants-defendants and interest was charged @ 12% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. though the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 wanted interest @ 15%. Issues Nos. 3 and 6A These issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 firm and against the defendants-appellants and it was further held that cheque (Ex. 53) was issued by Om Prakash, who was one of the partners of the appellant-defendant No. 1 firm and this cheque was issued in the capacity as partner and from this cheque, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was found within limitation by the learned lower Court. Issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 These issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and against the defendants-appellants. In view of the findings on issues Nos. 3 and 6A, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 firm was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh for Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 14,796/- principal amount and Rs. 5204/- interest) against the defendants-appellants through his judgment and decree dated 27-4-1982. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27-4-1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, the appellants-defendants have preferred this first appeal in this Court.
(3.) In this first appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has raised only two points :- (1) That the interest which has been charged by the learned lower Court is excessive; and (2) That the issues Nos. 3 and 6A were wrongly decided by the learned lower Court, inasmuch as, the cheque (Ex. 53) was never issued by Om Prakash on behalf of the appellant-defendant No. 1-firm and, therefore, no acknowledgment on account of debt or amount due can be given to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1-firm and the suit filed by it should be treated as time-barred.;