P.K. Bhasin, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th January,2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,50,000/- alongwith interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from March,1994 onwards filed by respondent no.1 in both the appeals, Ms.Kamini Sehgal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the plaintiff’). The decree passed was against the appellants as well as respondent no.3 in both the appeals, M/s A.V. Communications, for a sum of Rs.13,49,800/- and all the three defendants in the suit were made liable for the payment of the decretal amount jointly and severally. The appellant in RFA No.372/2005 was arrayed as defendant no.1 in the suit and reference to it shall hereinafter be made as ‘defendant no.1’ and the appellant in RFA No.312/2005 was arrayed as defendant no.2 and it shall be referred to in this judgment also as ‘defendant no.2’ while respondent no.3 in these appeals was impleaded in the suit as defendant no.3 and in this judgment also reference to it shall be made as defendant no.3. Since both the appeals were heard analogously they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The plaintiff’s case which has been noticed by the trial court in its judgment is as under:

“……………….. the plaintiff is engaged in carrying on business of producing TV serials and in the course of its business, the plaintiff produced a TV serial in the name of Jharokha which was telecast on DD2 Channel between April,1993 and November, 1994 for which a telecast fee was paid to Doordarshan and free commercial time was given to the plaintiff by Doordarshan as producer. The plaintiff was authorised by Doordarshan for booking spots/advertisements/ sponsorships during the course of the telecast of the said serial. The defendant no.1 keenly desired for the display of their products on the telecast of said serial and the defendant no.1 through T.S.A. predecessor of defendant no.2 which is an accredited advertising company, approached the plaintiff for allotment of time/slot. The predecessor of defendant no.2 disclosed to the plaintiff that they are the booking agents of various companies including defendant no.1 and on specific instruction of defendant no.1, bookings are made with the plaintiff for and on behalf of defendant no.1.The plaintiff was informed by the predecessor of defendant no.2, that the work and management of this assignment was entrusted to defendant no.3 for and on behalf of defendants and plaintiff was given clear impression that defendant no.3 is a part and parcel of theirs as both are working as a group. The plaintiff accepted the assignment of the defendants and proceeded to telecast the advertisements/spots of the products of defendant no.1 on its said TV serial. The plaintiff accordingly raised bills for the work assigned as per internal working arrangement of the defendants. In discharge of the part payment, the defendants through defendant no.3 issued cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 23.6.94 and promised to pay the balance amount but the defendants failed to pay the balance amount. Looking into the future business prospects, the plaintiff did not press strongly for release of payment. Thereafter the plaintiff prevailed over the defendants for early payment and accordingly the defendant no.3 once again handed over three cheques for Rs.50,000/-each. These cheques on presentation were returned unpaid due to insufficiency of funds. The plaintiff thereafter made repetitive requests for payment of the dues from time to time but in vain. The plaintiff vide its letter dated 6.3.95 reminded the defendant no.1 which was replied by defendant no.2 vide their letter dated 28.4.95.The defendant no.2 also informed the plaintiff that such payments were released in favour of defendant no.3 and defendant no.2 further disclosed that dealing with parties were on principal to principal basis. As per the plaintiff, the defendants have turned dishonest and with a view to secure