PREMRAJ MUNDRA Vs. MD MANECK GAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under the provisions of Order 38, Rules 5 & 6, Civil P. C., for an order that the defts do furnish security for the pltf.'s claim, & in default, the properties set out in the schedule annexed to the petition, belonging to the defts., be attached before judgment. There is a further prayer for a Receiver, but this is not pressed.

(2.) The suit is for goods sold & delivered by the pltf. to the defts. The sale is evidenced by a document described as a 'Chalan' in the petition, the actual document being headed as a 'Credit Memo.' A copy of this document has been annexed to the petition. This 'Credit Memo" states the name of the purchaser as Muhammad Maneck Gazi. It then gives the description of the goods, together with its rate & prices. It contains an endorsement at the bottom as follows: "We certify the above prices is/are correct & no overcharge has been made." It is signed by the purchaser namely Maneck Gazi. The document also contains the salesman's signature. The petitioner states that the defts. made payments from time to time & returned a portion of the goods & there is now due a sum of Rs. 7,927-10-0 from the defts. which they have failed to pay. It is stated that the defts. are Muhammadan businessmen & they used to carry on a small business at their residence at village Raghbkati, Basirhat, in the district of 24 Parganas. The village is just on the border of Hindusthan & Pakisthan. It is stated that they have stopped their business at Raghabkati & have started a small business in Pakisthan. It is further alleged that the defts. approached one Shyamapada Upadhyay, a Zemindar & land-holder, residing at village Sarapool, in Basirhat, very near the village of Raghabkati, a few weeks ago, & requested him to purchase the immovable properties belonging to the defts., particulars whereof are set out in the petition, for a sum of Rs. 8000., I have before me an affidavit of Shyamapada, Upadhyay, & he not only confirms that the defts. wished to sell the properties, but he also says that they told him that they wished to sell away their properties, & go to Pakisthan, to settle down there. The petitioner alleges that the defts. are trying to dispose of their properties with the intention of obstructing & delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against them.

(3.) Defendant 1 has filed an affidavit in which he has taken a very curious defence to the suit. He says that he lent his godown to the petitioner for storing his goods, & in view of that fact, the petitioner used to get credit vouchers signed by him. He says that he signed the vouchers as witnessing the quantity of articles stored. He concludes by saying that nothing is due from him; on the contrary he is to get commission for storing the articles.