In an action for wrongful detention, the plaintiff is entitled to damages for such wrongful detention, which can include the hire charges for the goods.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is dicected against judgmentand decree of Additional District Judge dated 7/11/1973 by whichhe had accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28/04/1973 passed by Sub-Judge decreeing the suit of the appellant forrecovery of Rs. 7,595. 28 paise with costs.

( 2 ) THE appellant died during the pendency of the proceedings andhis legal heirs namely Smt. Devinder Kaur Bagga and Smt. Virindcr Kataria,were brought on record but later on one of the LRs has also died and hersole legal heir namely Smt. Virinder Kaur was already on the record and thename of deceased Devinder Kaur Bagga was struck out.

( 3 ) FACTS, in brief, are that the plaintiff, who was a timber merchant hadsupplied on hire centering material comprising of planks 6 brand new 400 innumber on 2/07/1962 and another 400 on 21/07/1962 and pallu 8 eachhundred in number on first date and 150 more on the second date. Theplanks were at the rental of Rs. 2. 00 per diem while the pallus were at therental of Rs. 1. 50 per diem. On 12/12/1962, 230 planks and on 15/01/1963, 246 planks were returned to the plaintiff and similarly 120pallus on the first date and 100 pallus on the second date were returnedleaving the balance with the respondent i. e. 324 planks and 30 pallus.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff/appellant that Harish Chanderchopra, respondent/defendant had while taking the said material on hirerepresented that it was required for Joint Hindu Family firm of M/s. Rajaram Chopra and Sons of which his father was the Karta. The appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 5,489. 60 paise as hire charges forthe period upto 22/02/1964 in which he impleaded the said firm andthe father and son as defendants. Ultimately, it was held in that suit by thesub-Judge that in fact there existed no such firm and defendant namely. Harish Chander Chopra, had taken the said centering material on hire andhe alone was liable for the hiring charges. It appears that in that suit alsoharish Chander Chopra had taken the plea that the centering material hadbeen lost. The Sub-Judge decreed the suit for the said amount on 29/05/1968 disbelieving the plea of the defendant that the said centering materialhad been lost.

( 5 ) THE appeal filed by defendant against that decree was dismissedby an Additional District Judge on 28/04/1969 with similar findings. Itwas mentioned in the judgment of the Additional District Judge that in casein any suit brought for future hiring charges a plea is taken by the defendantthat the centering material given on hire had been lost, then the Court willdecide that plea on its own merits.

( 6 ) THE present suit was brought for recovery of hiring charges again,mentioning that the hiring charge? are due w. e. f. 22/02/196 4/05/1969 amounting to Rs. 13. 215. 31 paise but claim was restricted tors. 7. 595. 28 paise which covered the hire charges for the last three yearspreceding the date of the filing of the suit.

( 7 ) THE respondent/defendant again took up the same pleas as he hadraised while resisting the first suit which pleas were negatived against therespondent in the first suit and those findings operate as res-judicata, so therespondent/defendant cannot now take the plea that the centering materialwas not taken bv him on hire. He lias also taken the plea that the suit wasbarred by limitation but the suit was within time in respect of the hirecharges for three years period preceding the filing of the suit.

( 8 ) THE plea was again taken by the respondent/defendant that thecentering material bad been lost and thus suit for recovery of hire charges isnot maintainable. The learned Sub-Judge again gave a finding on meritthat respondent/defendant has failed to prove that the centering materialsupplied on hire had been lost. He held that the suit was within time andthe plea of the defendant that the material was supplied to the firm and thesuit was not maintainable without joining the said firm as on