R.R.YADAV, J. - (1.) LIST Is, revised. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff -appellant Mr. D.S. Shishodia assisted by Mr. Manish Shishodia is present in Court whereas learned Counsel representing defendant -respondent Mr. Leeladhar Gour is absent. I view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no alternative except to proceed ex parte against the defendant -respondents as envisaged under Sub -rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order 41 CPC.
(2.) INSTANT second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1981 passed by learned Civil Judge, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1080 affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.10.80 passed by learned Munsif Magistrate, Kotra in Civil Original Suit No. 15/78. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that plaintiff -appellant Pokhar Mal filed a money suit with the allegation that the plaintiff is carrying on business as a sole proprietor of the firm named as M/s Lalit Kumar Ganeshi Lal. There was a business dealing between the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant -respondent No. 1 -Amar Chand settled the accounts and signed the entry accepting a sum of Rs. 3785/ - to be due on 20.10.70. Thereafter, Interest was added from time to time and a sum of Rs. 678,20 was due towards interest. Thus, adding interest upto date, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,808.50.
(3.) THE defendant -respondents filed a detail written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and taking various defences. The defendants also claimed that the plaintiff is not a sole proprietor of the firm M/s Lalit Kumar Ganeshi Lal but it is a Partnership Firm between plaintiff Pokhar Mal, Lalit Kumar and Ganeshi Lal. The defendants further claimed that they paid Rs. 3000/ - to Ganeshi Lal towards the suit debt although they have not settled the account and no money is due as claimed by the plaintiff.;