Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
M/s. Sangeetha Traders Rep. by its Partner Santosh Kumar Lath – Appellant
Versus
T.A. Shanmugham, Proprietor M/s. Sai Packaging Industries – Respondent
A.S. No. 53 of 2013
Decided On : 25-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M. Aravind Subramanian.
For the Respondent: N. Chandraraj.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 96 - Order 41 Rule 1 - Rule 1956 - Suit for recovery of money - Defendant had acknowledged his liability - Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties - Defendant had approached plaintiff for supply of kraft papers and accordingly plaintiff had been supplying the goods to defendant through Paper Mills since receipt of which have been acknowledged by the defendant - Total value of the goods supplied to defendant is and out of the same, a sum of has been paid by the defendant on - After deducting the above said sum defendant is due a sum of and plaintiff has been maintaining a running account and since the payments against the dues were effected on the abovesaid suit claim is not barred by limitation - Payment has not been effected against the supplies on the dates as mentioned in plaint and the invoice amounts ought to have been paid on respective due dates i.e. days from the date of invoice - Since the payments were not made on due plaintiff has suffered a loss and had paid interest to the bankers - Held, In such view of matter claim of defendant that it had been receiving the supplies directly from the Mills, as such, cannot be countenanced and therefore, the further claim of defendant that the Paper Mills should have been made as parties to suit proceeding as such cannot be countenanced - When the contract is only between the plaintiff and the defendant qua supply of kraft papers and the supply effected by the plaintiff having not been controverted by the defendant and the defendant having acknowledged his liability to pay the suit claim under Exs.A6 and A7 to the plaintiff and also expressed his desire to renew the business dealings with the plaintiff in future, all would go to show that the contract is effected qua the supply of kraft papers only between the plaintiff and the defendant and in such view of the matter, there is no need for the impleadment of the paper Mills as parties to the proceeding for the adjudication of the issues involved in the matter - It is found that the paper Mills are not necessary parties to the suit proceeding and therefore the non-impleadment of Paper Mills would not in any manner affect the plaintiff’s case - Therefore plaintiff’s suit is found to be not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the determination of the trial court that the plaintiff’s suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties is therefore liable to be set aside - Miscellaneous petition closed
JUDGMENT :
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. r/w Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C. and Order IV Rule 14 and 15 of the Appellate side Rule 1956 against the judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2008 passed in O.S. No. 1709 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.
1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2008 passed in O.S. No. 1709 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the plaintiff has preferred the First Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.
3. Suit for recovery of money.
4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the it has been engaged in the business of dealing in Kraft papers and the plaintiff is the agent of various Paper Mills and as the agent dealing with all the customers in Tamil Nadu and the defendant had approached the plaintiff for the supply of kraft papers and accordingly the plaintiff had been supplying the goods to the defendant through the Paper Mills since 2001, the receipt of which have been acknowledged by the defendant. The total value of the goods supplied to the defendant is Rs. 6,40,468/- and out of the same, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been paid by the defendant on 01.04.2004, 24.01.2005 and 09.03.2005. After deducting the abovesaid sum, the defendant is due a sum of Rs. 5,65,468/- and the plaintiff has been maintaining a running account and since the payments against the dues were effected on the abovesaid dates, the suit claim is not barred by limitation. The payment has not been effected against the supplies on the dates as mentioned in the plaint and the invoice amounts ought to have been paid on the respective due dates i.e. 45 days from the date of invoice. Since the payments were not made on the due dates, the plaintiff has suffered a loss and had paid interest to the bankers. Despite several reminders and demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 5,65,468/- and the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant through their counsel on 25.06.2004 and the same was received by the defendant. The defendant through his reply acknowledged his liability and ask for some more time and assured to pay all the dues. The defendant had acknowledged his liability by letter dated 30.01.2006 and hence the claim made by the plaintiff is will within the time. The plaintiff sent a reply dated 03.03.2006 to the defendant to pay all the outstanding dues. As there is no response to the same on the part of the defendant, according to the plaintiff, it has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendant for appropriate reliefs.
5. The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s suit contending that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to the defendant, the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable, because the materials were supplied directly by the Paper Mills mentioned in para 3 and 4 of the plaint under their invoices and as such there is no contract with the plaintiff for the payment of the said invoice amounts to it directly. The plaintiff has not stated in what capacity it is entitled to file the suit and claim money from the defendant, particularly without the principal suppliers being made as the party claimants in the proceedings. Therefore the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable and barred/bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit laid by the plaintiff is also barred by limitation. The supplies were made for the period up to 15.07.2002 and the suit laid by the plaintiff on 12.03.2007 is beyond the period of limitation. The alleged payments said to have been made by the defendant on 01.04.2004, 24.01.2005 and 09.03.2005 are all denied and there is no acknowledgment of debt by the defendant and hence the suit is barred by limitation. Without prejudice to the abovesaid contentions, according to the defendant
