Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsels for the parties.
(2.) This First Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-M/s. Modi Ram handra Khushal Chand Sirohi on account of rejection of its plaint in Civil Suit lo. 45/87, which was a money recovery suit and came to be rejected on 19.8.1994 y the learned Trial Court of District Judge, Sirohi. In all 8 issues were framed by the learned Trial Court and except Issue No. 1, all the remaining issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff finding that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery Rs. 33,200/- with interest on account of business transaction of sale of cereals, sugar, wheat etc. Decree was passed to the extent of Rs. 33,200/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of the decree.
(3.) The Issue No. 1 was as to whether the plaintiff-Pradeep Kumar S/o Shanti Lal was the proprietor of M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi. The arned Trial Court decided the said Issue No. 1 in Para Nos. 15 to 21 of the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the notice served by the plaintiff Ex. 3), was on behalf of the firm-M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi and not on behalf of the proprietor Shri Pradeep Kumar. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant, Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar argued that PW-l-Pradeep Kumar and PW-)-Babu Lal were examined by the Trial Court and they have categorically stated to the said firm M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi was a fartnership firm prior to May 1984 and since May, 1984 the same was the; proprietorship concern of Pradeep Kumar and the earlier partner Shri Chhagan Lal lied in the year 1987 and since then the business in the name and style of M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi was being carried on by Pradeep Kumar has a proprietor of said firm and the transaction and money due in question was after the said proprietorship firm came into existence.;