M/S Bhajan Lal Rajani Kant vs M/S Kapoor Engineering Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 7423 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 103/1994

 1. M/s Bhajan Lal Rajani Kant (Barouli Chharwale)
    A desolved partnership firm, registered dealer of Koopar Oil
 Engine, Kherli Mandi, District Alwar, Rajasthan
 2. Bhajan Lal S/o Sh. Kundanlal
 3. Rajni Kant S/o Sh. Hetram
     Appellant No. 2 & 3 are partners of M/s Bhajan Lal Rajani
 Kant, R/o Village Barouli Chhar Near Kherli, District Alwar,
 Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                    Versus
 1. M/s Koopar Engineering Ltd. Branch officer 10, Motilal Atal
 Road, Jaipur Through Secretary, Sh. K.V. Sethi
 2. M/s    The Universal        Supply Corporation,             Jaipur Somani
 Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur through Partner Sh. Prakash Chandra
 Sogani
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

09/12/2021

This first appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants

assailing the money decree dated 18.04.1994 passed by the

Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.

146/1989 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

The brief facts as culled out from the record that one

agreement dated 23.08.1969 was entered into between the

plaintiffs and the defendants where under the sub-dealership to

(2 of 5) [CFA-103/1994]

sell the Koopar Oil Engine Pumps and accessories was given to the

defendants. The plaintiff's case is that he delivered 88 engines

having worth of Rs. 3,32,926/- but the defendant has not paid the

entire cost and paid only Rs. 2,55,420/-, therefore,

Rs. 77,506.27/- remains due against the defendants. The plaintiffs

averred that against the said due amount, after some deductions,

the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 49,190.87/- from the

defendants. The plaintiffs have averred that the last payment was

made by the defendants vide receipts dated 25.11.1974,

02.12.1974 & 08.01.1975. Therefore, the civil suit for recovery

filed on 07.01.1978 is well within the limitation and the same

deserves to be decreed.

The appellant-defendants submitted the written statement

and denied the averments of plaintiff. Although, delivery of 88

engines were not disputed, however, the due amount was

disputed, questioning the plaintiff's calculations. The main

objection was taken that the suit is barred by limitation and same

is not triable before the Court at Jaipur. The defendants also

contended that the parties had mutually settled the accounts on

30.09.1974, therefore, the present suit for recovery is not liable to

succeed.

On the basis of rival pleadings by both the parties, learned

Trial Court framed as many as 18 issues, including the issue of

relief and recorded the evidence of both the parties. After hearing

both the parties, learned Trial Court has decreed the suit vide

judgment and decree dated 18.04.1994 and thus, this appeal has

been filed.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

(3 of 5) [CFA-103/1994]

The main thrust of arguments of the counsel for the

appellant-defendants is that the present civil suit for recovery is

barred by limitation. Learned counsel submits that once the

parties have mutually settled the accounts on 30.09.1974 and

there is no proof of making any part payment on 08.01.1975,

therefore, the present suit filed on 07.01.1978 is beyond limitation

and deserves to be dismissed.

As far as this objection is concerned, the Trial Court has

framed issue Nos. 2, 14 & 17. While deciding these issues, the

Trial Court has discussed the evidence on record and concluded

that the defendants have miserably failed to prove the mutual

settlement of accounts between the parties on 30.09.1974. The

Trial Court has found that the plaintiffs have produced receipts

exhibit Nos. 5, 6 & 7 to show that the part payment was made by

defendants on 25.11.1974-Rs. 500/-, on 02.12.1974-Rs. 500/-

and that on 08.01.1975- Rs.1,000/-. These documents have been

exhibited and proved by PW-1 (Balkrishan) and PW-4 (S R Kohli).

This Court finds that as per the evidence available on record,

the findings given by the Trial Court are just and proper. There is

no illegality or perversity in the findings as far as the issue No. 2,

14 & 17 are concerned. The contention of defendants that the

plaintiff has not produced his account books to prove the last

payment by defendants, is not sustainable as the receipts exhibit

Nos. 5, 6 & 7 are available on record to show the part payment

made by the defendants.

As far as the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the

Jaipur Court is concerned, the Trial Court has dealt with this

objection in the issue No. 4 and observed that the agreement

dated 23.08.1969 (exhibit No. 15) was executed between the

(4 of 5) [CFA-103/1994]

parties at Jaipur, therefore, the Court at Jaipur has jurisdiction to

trial the present civil suit. This Court does not find any illegality in

such findings. Mere oral objection of the defendants that Court at

Jaipur has no territorial jurisdiction without support of any other

evidence, is not sustainable.

Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants has also

disputed the quantum of amount of Rs. 49,190.87/- decreed

against the defendants. The Trial Court has framed independent

and separate issue to deal with the due amount under the

different heads and has also framed counter issues as per defence

of the defendants. The issue No. 5 pertains to the due amount of

Rs. 33,272/- as costs of 12 engines which have been found

recoverable by the plaintiff. The issue No. 8 has been decided in

relation to the amount of 5671.50/- on account of non-working

parts of engines. In the issue No. 9, the amount of Rs. 6120/- has

been dealt with. In issue No. 10, the amount of credit note Rs.

4229/- has been discussed. In issue No. 11, the amount of Rs.

3702.05/- against the over-riding commission has been discussed.

In issue No. 12, the amount of Rs. 2004.88/- has been found to

be deducible. In issue No. 13, the security amount of Rs. 1500/-

has been found to be deducible. In issue No. 18, the Trial Court

has considered and discussed all the due amounts as also the

amounts which are adjustable and thereafter has concluded that

the plaintiff is entitled to recover total Rs. 49,190.87/- from the

defendants. The findings of the Trial Court on all the issues have

been given after due appreciation of the pleadings and evidence

on record. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in

such findings as such same are liable to be affirmed.

(5 of 5) [CFA-103/1994]

It is amply clear that the Trial Court has dealt with each and

every objection of the appellant-defendants and all the objections

have been denied after framing independent and separate issues.

The issue Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13 have already been decided

in favour of the defendants and the amount under different heads

have been found to be adjustable against the due amount.

As far as the rate of interest on the due amount is

concerned, the Trial Court has awarded 6% simple annual interest

which cannot be said to be of higher rate of interest.

By perusal of the record of this appeal, it transpires that this

first appeal was admitted for hearing on 27.02.1997 and during

course of appeal, the execution of the money decree was not

stayed. Both the counsel for the parties are not in a position to

apprise the Court as to whether the decree dated 18.04.1994 has

been executed or not.

Be that as it may, considering the fact that impugned money

decree has been passed only for amount of Rs. 49,190.87/- and

the Trial Court, after framing independent and separate issues,

has discussed each and every issue according to the pleadings and

evidence available on record; further this Court has not found any

illegality or perversity in such findings, this Court is not inclined to

interfere in such findings and thus, the impugned decree for

recovery of money of Rs. 49,190.87/- with interest @ 6% per

annum is affirmed.

This first appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly,

dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAHIL SONI /03

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)