JUDGMENT J.D. Kapoor, J.
1. Plaintiff company has a unit known as Daurala Sugar Works which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of refined organic Chemicals besides vacuum pan sugar etc. Defendant No. 1 has been placing orders on the plaintiff company through its partners at its sales office at Kanchanjunga Building 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for the purchase of Benzyl Chloride and Sodium Benzoate. Admittedly the goods were supplied from the unit of the plaintiff at Meerut. Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 6,16,943/- under the summary procedure of Order 37 Code of Civil Procedure towards their dues. The details showing the goods supplied against each order and the cheques issued by defendant No. 1 which on presentation were dishonoured have been furnished in para 14 of the plaint. Vide letter dated 5.1.1995, defendant No. 1 through its partner defendant No. 4 acknowledged their liability to pay Rs. 4,80,237/- with the as-
surance that they would be making the balance amount in due course. However, when the defendants did not keep their promise in spite of plaintiff's pleas to make payment, the instant suit was filed.
2. Summons of the suit for entering into appearance were duly served upon defendant No. 1 and its partners defendants 2 to 4. However, defendants 1, 3 & 4 did not respond and as a consequence, suit was decreed against them. It is defendant No. 2 who is seeking leave to defend the suit mainly on the premise that he being the employee of defendant No. 1 was joined as a sleeping partner and in a meeting of the partners held on 10.4.1994/11.4.1994 at Nagda, it was resolved that defendant No. 2 would retire from the partnership and a retirement deed and a new deed was to be written in consultation with a competent Chartered Accountant and since it was decided that this defendant would not claim any money from the firm, he would not be liable for any matter pertaining to the firm to make payment as claimed by the plaintiff.
3. In support of his plea of leave to defend, defendant No. 2 has also taken the stand that he has mortgaged his plot for cash credit limit in the name of defendant No. 1 firm in the bank wherein it was agreed that husband of defendant No. 4 shall replace this plot from other property and give 20 post dated cheques in the later six months starting from 1.10.1994 and till the plot is not released, defendant No. 2 shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of the plot. He was paid only Rs. 75,000/- and, therefore, he has no legal liability towards the plaintiff. In addition to this, defendant No. 2 has also challenged territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the premise that plaintiff had been supplying goods to defendant No. 1 through its unit at Daurala which is situated in Meerut and also that defendant is alleged to have drawn cheques on the bank in Meerut and goods were also supplied at defendant's factory at Meerut, so much so notice was also given by the counsel for the plaintiff at Meerut.
4. At the outset, last plea of non-jurisdiction of this Court needs to be dealt with first. Admittedly the plaintiff has its registered office at Delhi. The orders by defendant No. 1 were placed at its Delhi address and in various sales notes it was agreed that Delhi courts would have jurisdiction. Moreover defendant No. 1 has also its office may be subordinate office at Delhi which is apparent from the letter dated 5.1.1995 wherein the address mentioned is 215/105, Pankaj Market, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi. Merely because one of units of the plaintiff company is situated at Meerut and goods were supplied from its unit at Meerut to defendant No. 1 at Meerut does not mean that Meerut courts have jurisdiction nor would the issuing of notice by plaintiff's counsel to defendant No. 1 at Meerut provides an exclusive jurisdiction to Meerut court. Sub-section (c) of Section 20, CPC provides jurisdiction to the court where cause of action wholly or in part arises. Further Sub-clause (b) of Section 20 which relates to a situation where there are more than one defendant provides that cause of action would be available to the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the defendants at the time of commencement of the suit actually or voluntarily resides and carries on business or personally works for gain.
5. The circumstance of defendants having placed orders at Delhi office cannot be lost sight of nor can office address of defendant No. 1 at Delhi be ignored.
These facts subjugate the factum of plaintiff having supplied goods at Meerut and served notice at Meerut. Therefore, the plea that this court has no jurisdiction is without substance and appears to be feeble attempt to escape the liability.
6. The main question on which grant or refusal to leave rests is whether defendant No. 2 can take advantage of his retirement from defendant No. 1 firm prior to the institution of this suit. Section 32 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 provides remedy to the retiring partner against any liability of the firm towards third party. Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 32 is relevant and significant for the purpose of deciding grant or refusal to leave to defendant No. 2. It reads as under :-
32. Retirement of a partner xxxxx (2) A retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him within such third party and the partners of the reconstituted firm, and such agreement may be implied by a course of dealing between such third party and the reconstituted firm after he had knowledge of the retirement.
(3) Notwithstanding the retirement of a partner from a firm, he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the retirement, until public notice is given of the retirement: Provided that a retired partner is not liable to any third party who deals with the firm without knowing that he was a partner."
7. As is apparent from the aforesaid provisions of law, a retiring partner can be discharged from the liability to any third party for the acts of the firm done before his retirement in following eventualities :-
(i) There should be an agreement between such third party and the partners of reconstituted firm : (ii) There should be a public notice of the retirement given by such a partner as such a notice emcompasses the notice of retirement to various class of persons who might enter into partnership firm.
8. Admittedly cheques in question were issued by defendant No. 2 in his capacity as a partner during subsistence of the partnership firm and his existence as a partner and some of the cheques were even signed by defendant No. 2 which bounced on presentation, it is contended that though letter sent by Ms. Renu Sharma one of the partners of reconstituted firm, reconstituted firm acknowledged not only the liability but also assured to discharge the same. Defendant No. 2 is taking refuge under this letter mainly on the premise that it was he who had mortgaged his plot with the bank against cash credit limit of the partnership firm and issued twenty cheques of Rs. 10,000/- each to the plaintiff company on the premise that he would be paid Rs. 2 lakhs against the mortgage of the said plot but instead he was paid Rs. 75,000/- by way of pay order to some third party,
9. This stand cannot come to the rescue of defendant No. 2 as this was an internal arrangement between the partners for which plaintiff had got nothing to do. Plaintiff was only concerned with the payments due from defendant No. 1 and its partners. The very fact that defendant No. 2 did not give any notice in terms of Section 32 upon third party and as per his own version, public notice was given some time in December, 1995 whereas he retired from the partnership firm in April, 1995 does not entitle him to leave to defend because of provisions of Section 32 of the Partnership Act. If he has any dispute with other partners as to the non payment of the entire agreed amount of Rs. 2 lac towards cash credit facility against mortgage of his plot it is independent of instant transactions and is to be settled by way of independent remedy and not by way of seeking discharge from the liability which existed at the time when he was the partner of defendant No. 1 firm. The dispute of defendant No. 2 with defendant No. 1 and other partners cannot be decided or determined in these proceedings and, therefore, the ptea taken by defendant No. 2 that after his retirement he did not receive the said amount from other partners cannot come to his defense. The proceedings are only confined to the question whether defendant No. 2 can be discharged from the liability on account of his having retired from the partnership of defendant No. 1. Answer has been provided in the negative.
10. For the foregoing, I do not feet inclined to grant leave to defend. The application is dismissed and leaves is declined. In the result, suit is decreed for Rs. 6,16,943/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% on the principal amount of Rs. 4,75,629/- till realization.