- (1.) This civil second appeal filed by appellantdefendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No.48/2003, by which the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur in Civil Suit No.76/1993, whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit of the respondentplaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.35,000/-.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondentplaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.35,000/- with the averment that the plaintiff is doing a business in the name and style of M/s. Panday Minerals and Laxminarayan is the sole proprietor and the defendant No.1 and 2, i.e. the present appellants are private limited companies and the defendant No.3 is the director of the said companies. Both the defendant companies were doing business with the plaintiff firm of buying and selling of soap stone and grinding work and the accounts were verified every year. It was further averred in the plaint that in the month of June 1976 some dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendants and all the transaction were closed between them and there were many litigations, but in the end on 01.07.1978 an agreement was arrived at between the parties and the defendants realized Rs.35,000/- due with them of the plaintiff firm, for which the agreement was executed and the defendant No.3 signed over it, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the said amount alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(3.) The defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff firm is not a sole proprietorship firm, but it is a registered firm and the defendant No.3 was not the director of the defendant No.1 and 2 companies and it was further averred that the defendant No.1 and 2 were not having their headquarter at Udaipur. It was further averred that the plaintiff was appointed as authorized representative of the defendant No.1, who appointed his son-in-law Laxminarayan in the defendant No.1 company and acted beyond his authority and committed forgery and embezzlement and was dismissed from service in the month of June 1976. Further the execution of agreement dated 01.07.1978 was denied and it was alleged that the same has been fabricated on the stationary lying with the plaintiff. It was further stated that the defendant No.3 has no power to sign the agreement and he was at Mumbai on the date of the agreement.;