BALLABH DAS Vs. RAJESH CHAND GUPTA
LAWS(RAJ)-1987-8-73
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on August 31,1987

BALLABH DAS Appellant
VERSUS
Rajesh Chand Gupta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MOHINI KAPOOR, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1978, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dismissing the suit of the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 20,563/ -.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The plaintiff appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - on 1 -4 -1968, for which a pronote and receipt was executed by respondent No. 1. This pronote describes the borrower as Rajesh Chand Gupta s/o Harish Chandra Gupta, c/o Delhi Sanitary Stores, Choura Rasta Jaipur. The pronote has been signed by Rajesh Chand Gupta without specifying as to the capacity in which he has put his signatures. On 8 -6 -1969, a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - was paid towards the loan by Rajesh Chand Gupta and he made an endorsement to this effect on the reverse of the pronote. The allegation of the plaintiff appellant was that the money had been obtained by Rajesh Chand Gupta in his capacity as partner of M/s Delhi Sanitary Stores, and this firm as well as the other partner Shri S.C. Gupta were also liable for the amount which remained unpaid. The suit was instituted on 3 -10 1974 and in order to bring the suit within limitation, extension was sought on basis of an endorsement about the payment of Rs. 500/ - by Shri R.K. Gupta, Advocate, who is said to have paid this amount on behalf of the firm and therefore, amounted to an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The respondents filed separate written statements. Rajesh Chand admitted the execution of the pronote and taking of Rs. 18,000/ - but he denied that Rs. 500/ - were paid by Shri R.K. Gupta on his behalf on 8 -6 -1969 so as to say that this payment would extend the period of limitation against him. The other respondent viz. Sushil Chand and the firm denied having obtained any loan of Rs. 18,000/ - from the appellant and also denied the fact that the pronote had been executed on behalf of the firm.
(3.) THE learned lower Court framed the following issues. .........[vernacular ommited text]...........;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.