MOHINI KAPUR, J.—This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1978, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dismissing the suit of the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 20,563/.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The plaintiff appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 18,000/-on 1.4.1968, for which a pronote and receipt was executed by respondent no. 1. This pronote describes the borrower as Rajesh Chand Gupta s/o Harish Chandra Gupta, c/o Delhi Sanitary Stores, Choura Rasta, Jaipur. The pronote has been signed by Rajesh Chand Gupta with out specifying as to the capacity in which he has put his signatures. On 8 6.1969, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid towards the loan by Rajesh Chand Gupta and he made an endorsement to this effect on the reverse of the pronote. The allegation of the plaintiff appellant was that the money had been obtained by Rajesh Chand Gupta in his capacity as partner of M/s Delhi Sanitary Stores, and this firm as well as the other partner Shri S. C Gupta were also liable for the amount which remained unpaid. The suit was instituted on 3. 10. 1974 and in order to bring the suit within limitation, extension was sought on basis of an endorsement about the payment of Rs. 500/- by Shri R. K. Gupta, Advocate, who is said to have paid this amount on behalf of the firm and therefore, amounted to an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.

3. The respondent filed separate written statements. Rajesh Chand admitted the execution of the pronote and taking of Rs. 18,000/- but he denied that Rs. 500/- were paid by Shri R. K. Gupta on his behalf on 8. 6. 1969 so as to say that this payment would extend the period of limitation against him. The other respondent viz. Sushil Chand and the firm denied having obtained any loan of Rs. 18,000/- from the appellant and also denied the fact that the pronote had been executed on behalf of the firm.

4. The learned lower Court framed the following issues:-

^^1- D;k izfroknh ua- 1 us cgSfl;r ikVZuj QeZ izfroknh ua- 3 izksuksV o jlhn eqrnkfo;k oknh ds gd esa rdehy fd;s\ ih

vFkok

D;k mä izksuksV o jlhn izfroknh ua- 1 us viuh O;fäxr gSfl;r ls rdehy fd;s vkSj muls izfroknhx.k ua- 2 o 3 dk dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gS\ Mh

2- D;k izfroknh ua- 1 us cgSfl;r ikVZuj QeZ izfroknh ua- 3 mä dtsZ isVs 5000@& :i;s rkjh[k 8-6-69 dks vnk fd;s vkSj izksuksV dh iqr ij bl eqrfYyd bUnzkt dj fn;kA ih

3- D;k izfroknh ua- 1 ds vkWFkksjkbZTM ,sts.V Jh jke dY;ku ,MoksdsV us izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls fnukad 6-4-72 dks 500@& :- oknh dks vnk fd;s vkSj bl eqrkfyd izksuksV dh iqr ij bUnzkt dj fn;kA ih

4- D;k mä vnk;xh Jh jke dY;k.k xqIrk us izfroknh ua- 2 dh fgnk;r ds vuqlkj dh Fkh] ftlls Hkh reke izfroknhx.k bl vnk;xh ls ikcUn gS\

vFkok

D;k izfroknh ua- izfroknh ua- 2 dks ,slk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha fn;k fd og dksbZ jde mä dtsZ isVs Hkqxrku djsa vkSj u izfroknh ua- 2 dh dksbZ ,Dlizsl] beIykbM vkSj dkalVªfDVo vkWFkksfjVh gh Fkh\

5- D;k izfroknh ua- 1 us oknh dk iwjk fglkc dj lewph jde lu~ 196 esa vnk dj nh vkSj ekfQd fQdjk ua- 4 tokc nkok izksuksV feyus ij ykSVk nsus vFkok QkM+ nsus dk vkoklu fn;k\ Mh

6- D;k izfroknh ua- 1 dks izfroknhx.k ua- 2 o 3 dh vksj ls dksbZ :i;k dtZ ysus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk vkSj mlds }kjk fu"ikfnr izksuksV o jlhn izfroknx.k ua- 2 o 3 ds vf/kdkjksa ij ds vne o csvlj gS\ Mh

7- D;k izfroknhx.k ds fo:0 ;g okn iw.kZr;k >waBs rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izfroknhx.k dks gsjku o ijskku djus xtj ls fd;k x;k gS ftlls izfroknh [kpkZ foks"k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS= Mh

8- D;k Jh jkedY;k.k }kjk djkbZ xbZ reke dk;Zokgh tkyh o "kM;U= iw.kZ fcuk fdlh vf/kdkj ds xSj dkuwuh o xyr gS\ Mh

9- D;k ;g nkok fe;kn ckgj gS vkSj dkfcys b[kjkt gS\

10- nknjlh\

5. The learned Additional District Judge held that pronote and receipt were executed by the respondent No. 1 in his personal capacity and not in the capacity of a partner of the firm and that the respondent no. 1 alone was liable for the amount of pronote. The payment of Rs. 500/- by respondent no. 1 was accepted but t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document