SITARAM KRISHNA PADHYE Vs. CHIMANDAS FATEHCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is brought on three hundis running in the following form : Fifty-six days after date I promise to pay Seth Chimandas Fatehchand or order the sum of Rs. 600 only for value received in cash. G.V. Athale, Managing Proprietor, Gangadhar & B. Friends, Sandhurst Road, Bombay No. 4. Chimandas Fatehchand, the payee, are the plaintiffs, G.V. Athale is the first defendant, Gangadhar & B. Friends are the second defendants. The appellant before us is one S.K. Padhye, and the writ in this case was served on him as a partner the alleged firm of the second defendants. He appeared under protest, and subsequently obtained unconditional leave to B. defend, and put in a written statement making a general defence to the suit and putting the plaintiffs to strict proof on all points.

(2.) At the trial, issues were raised as to whether Padhye was a partner with defendants No. 2, and whether he held himself out as a partner in the second defendant firm. The learned Judge answered both these issues in his favour to this extent, namely, that he was not a partner and did not hold himself out to be so, but held that he was the owner. The learned Judge accordingly passed a decree for Rs. 4891 for debt and interest against Padhye.

(3.) As regards the first defendant he had only obtained leave to defend conditionally on bringing a certain sum into Court. He failed to do that, and consequently the suit was undefended so far as ha was concerned, may here observe that that did not necessarily involve a decree being passed against him. It was still for the Court to be satisfied that he was liable to the plaintiffs. But in fact there was also a decree that the first defendant should pay the said sum of Rs. 4891.