Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President—Admitted facts of this case are that appellant No. 1 is a Courier Service, and its Operation Manager, appellant No. 2 is at its operation office at Ambala Cantt. Proforma respondent No. 2 Chain Singh was working under appellant No. 2 at Nahan, District Sirmour. Respondent No. 1 handed over a letter to Chain Singh for being delivered at Gobindgarh Mandi, through the appellant courier servicwe. This letter contained two bank drafts of the total value of Rs. 71,500. These were not delivered to the addressee as per information received by the said respondent No. 1.

2. In these circumstances, it informed the issuing Banker i.e., State Bank of India, Nahan, instructing to stop payment, as misuse was anticipated. However, respondent No. 1 was informed by its Banker that said drafts stood already encashed.

3. When put to notice, appellant No. 2 and proforma respondent contested and resisted the claim of respondent No. 1, whereas appellant No. 1 was ex parte. What is its effect, will be dealt with hereinafter.

4. As already noted, appellant No. 2 admitted himself to be the agent of appellant No. 1 and proforma respondnet was the sub agent of appellan