Case: Madan Gopal Kanodia Vs. Mamraj Maniram and Othersand Vice Versa

Civil Appeal No. 707 is the plaintiffs appeal by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court against its judgment and decree passed in First Appeal 252 of 1953 dated July 10, 1962. The defendants/respondents have also filed their appeal 708 of 1968 for recovery of Rs. 10, 000 from the plaintiff.      2. The plaintiff had brought a suit in the Court of the First Civil Judge, Kanpur for recovery of Rs. 39, 956/8/from the defendants on account of three main items. The plaintiffs case was that he was carrying on wholesale cloth business at Kanpur in the name and style of Anant Ram Madan Gopal. The defendants firm was also carrying on cloth business at Kanpur and the defendants firm was known as Mamraj Maniram. The plaintiffs case further was that apart from certain business dealings, the defendant firm used to borrow monies from the plaintiff on various occasions and used to purchase cloth from the plaintiff on credit. Similarly the plaintiff also purchased cloth from the defendants firm and used to send bales of cloth to the defendants firm for retail sale. Badri Prasad one of the partners of the defendants firm was a close friend of the plaintiff. They were on very good terms and each of them was willing to cooperate with the other in carrying on the business of the two firms. The plaintiffs case further was that some time in April, 1948 both the plaintiff and the defendants firm had purchased 400 bales of cloth from M/s. Sidh Gopal Gajanand of Bombay. Out of the total goods the plaintiff had purchased 200 bales and the remaining 200 bales had been purchased by the defendants firm. The plaintiff further averred that the purchase of the entire quantity of 400 bales was actually a joint venture, though both the plaintiff and the defendants firm ordered separately for the same, the plaintiff having paid the money through the defendants firm. The plaintiff further alleged that the goods were received at Phaphund and were brought to Kanpur in trucks through the employees of the plaintiff as also the defendants and were unloaded and dumped in the shop and godown of the defendants as the plaintiffs godown was not sufficient to contain the huge quantity of the goods purchased from the Bombay firm. Thereafter the modus operandi was that the bales of cloth belonging to the plaintiff as also to the defendant were sold through Harish Chandra Bagla who was the commission agent and who arranged for purchasers of the bales of cloth belonging to both the parties. A large number of invoices regarding the goods sold were prepared at the defendants shop and after the purchases were arranged by Harish Chandra Bagla the defendants used to send their peons or bill collectors to realise the money and give delivery to the purchasers. Thereafter the defendants used to pay the sale proceeds of the cloth belonging to the plaintiff to him. Unfortunate friction between the two friends resulted from the fact that the defendants having sold 21 bales of cloth did not pay the price thereof to the plaintiff in spite of several demands. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the defendant Badri Prasad admitted having sold 21 bales by mistake and asked the plaintiff of debit the cost of the cloth to his account and accordingly an amount of Rs. 21,3 being the price of 21 bales of cloth was debited in the account books of the plaintiff in the name of the defendants. This was the first item which was claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint. It was further alleged that the plaintiff had sent cloth worth Rs.3 for being sold by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff which was actually sold by the defendants through Ramesh Chandra Jagdish Prasad of Naughada, but the plaintiff was not paid the price thereof. The third claim related to a sum of Rs.6 which is said to have been borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed a sum of Rs.0 being the interest at the stipulated rate of/10/3. The suit was contested by the defendants, who, inter alia, pleaded that they had not at all sold 21 bales of cloth as alleged by the plaintiff nor was the purchase of 400 bales a joint venture or enterprise entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants, nor were the goods brought from Phaphund and unloaded in the godown of the defendants. The defendants further denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff had purchased 200 bales of cloth from Bombay firm and had paid for the same separately had sold the same through Harish Chandra Bagla. The defendants, however, admitted that they had also bought 200 bales of cloth from M/s. Sidh Gopal Gajanand which were also sold through Harish Chandra Bagla and in fact the entire cloth was unloaded in the shop of Harish Chandra Bagla situated in Morayawala Gola in the city of Kanpur. The defendants also averred that the accounts of the plaintiff were wrong and fabricated as would be evidenced from the fact that a sum of Rs. 10, 000 had been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff for which no credit was shown in the account books of the plaintiff. The defendants, however, admitted that there were some monetary transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants relating to borrowing of monies from time to time which were shown in the accounts books of the defendants.      4. The plaintiff after perusing the written statement of the defendants immediately conceded the fact that he had received Rs. 10, 000 and it was not credited to the account of the defendants by mistake and he accordingly reduced his claim from Rs. 39,0 to Rs. 29,. Subsequently counsel for the plaintiff gave a statement before the trial Court that if the plaintiff succeeds, a decree to the extent of Rs. 28, 671 only may be passed against the defendants.      5. After the plaint was filed by the plaintiff, the defendants filed an application before the trial Court praying that the allegations made in the plaint being vague and ambiguous, the plaintiff may be directed under Order 6, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure to file better particulars in support of his case. The trial Court directed the plaintiff to file better particulars by way of written statement by August 9, 1952. As the plaintiff could not file his written statement containing the better particulars by August 9, 1952, he was allowed to file the same by August 16, 1952. On this day the plaintiff filed his written statement containing better particulars and the details of his claim and along with his written statement he also filed 13 documents and prayed that the same may be allowed to be produced after condoning the delay. The trial Court accordingly accepted the prayer of the plaintiff, condoned the delay, and directed the defendants to record their admission or denial on the documents filed by the plaintiff on August 16, 1952. In pursuance of the order of the court the defendants recorded their admission or denial on those documents. We have mentioned these facts, particularly because the High Court seems to have made a huge capital out of the fact that the plaintiff had filed the Nakal Bahi and other documents at a late state of the suit without obtaining the permission of the courta fact which is not at all borne out from the order sheet of the trial Court. We shall deal with this aspect of the matter a little later.      6. The trial Court framed a number of issues and after taking evidence both oral and documentary of both the parties accepted the plaintiffs case in toto and passed a decree for Rs. 28, 671. The defendants then went up in appeal to the High Court which reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit accepting the case made out by the defendants. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application before High Court for grant of certificate of fitness for filing an appeal to this Court and the certificate having been granted, Appeal 707 of 1968 is now before us.

Court's reasoning:
18. The last item consists of a sum of Rs. 3819/14/6 which may be rounded off to Rs. 3820 on account of the cash borrowings by the defendants. This item was not seriously pressed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant before us, nor has any evidence been produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim. In these circumstances, therefore, the High Court was fully justified in disallowing this claim also19. Thus on the evidence led by the plaintiff he has been able to prove only item (a) of the plaint amounting to Rs. 21, 686 being the price of 21 bales of cloth which was sold by the defendants. The defendants have pointed out in their written statement that they had paid a sum of Rs. 10, 000 by cheque to the plaintiff which has not been accounted for and the plaintiff at once agreed to give a credit of this amount by subtracting it from the claim put forward by him in the present suit. This shows that bona fides of the plaintiff. But the manner in which the credit of Rs. 10, 000 has been given by the plaintiff is not legally correct. If the plaintiff has proved his claim to the extent of Rs. 21, 686/11/3, he must first subtract Rs. 10, 000 from this amount before adding interest on his claim. Thus after giving credit of Rs. 10, 000 the claim of the plaintiff would be Rs. 11, 686/11/3 which may be rounded off at Rs. 11, 686. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 10 annas per cent, per month which appears to us to be too high. We would, therefore, allow the claim for interest to the extent of 6 per cent, per annum for three years. This will come to about Rs. 700 per year. The interest for three years would be Rs. 2100. Thus in view of our finding, the plaintiff is entitled to the item relating to the cost of 21 bales of cloth sold by the defendants to a decree for Rs. 13, 786 which includes interest upto the date of the suit, after giving, credit for the amount of Rs. 10, 000 which he admittedly received from the defendants. Since the amount of Rs. 10, 000 claimed by the defendants has been duly credited by the plaintiff and his claim has been reduced by Rs. 10, 000 the appeal of the defendants is disposed of on full satisfaction13. In the written statement filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, the particulars and essential details of the 21 bales of cloth were clearly mentioned in paragraph 1(b). Further more, counsel for the plaintiff gave a statement before the trial Court on September 5, 1952 where also all the essential details regarding the 200 bales of cloth were given. In the statement the counsel for the plaintiff admitted that the plaintiff had received the sale proceeds of 179 bales of cloth and that 21 bales of cloth remained unaccounted for. In the evidence also the plaintiff has sought to prove the very case set up in the plaint as also in the written statement filed later under orders of the Court. We are unable to see any substantial variation between the pleadings of the plaintiff and the evidence led by him at the trial. It isd that the pleadings are loosely drafted in the courts, and the courts should not scrutinise the pleadings with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds. In our opinion, the finding of the High Court that there was wide gap between the pleadings and the proof is not at all borne out from the record of the present case.