JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral)

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, defendant No.1 (appellant herein) are in second appeal before this Court assailing trial Court judgment and decree dated 22.02.2019, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022.

3. Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Courts below are that plaintiff No.1 is the sole proprietorship concern and plaintiff No.2 is its sole proprietor. Defendant No.1 is limited company and defendant Nos.2 to 4 on behalf of defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs at Mandi Gobindgarh and showed their intention to sell old used sugar machinery scrap and accordingly the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the same and thereafter for purchase of the material the plaintiffs deposited an amount of Rs.18,10,000/- in advance in the account of defendant No.1 through RTGS i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.08.2011, Rs.4,10,000/- on 01.10.2011 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 07.10.2011 from their bank account i.e. Bank of Maharashtra Branch Mandi Gobindgarh. It was further averred that defendants sent material to plaintiffs only vide Bill No.110061 dated 01.10.2011 amounting to Rs.3,53,654.40/- but thereafter the defendants never sent any material to the plaintiffs. Even the plaintiffs approached the defendants several times to send material of the remaining amount but all in vain. After deducting the amount of bill, Rs.14,56,345.60/- was still due and lying deposited with the defendants. It was further averred that the defendants were illegally and unlawfully withholding the said amount of the plaintiffs with them and as such the plaintiffs were entitled to claim interest @ 18% per annum from the defendants. Hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.22,20,927.20/- i.e. principal plus interest amount.

4. Upon notice, defendants-appellants appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim, taking preliminary objections of maintainability of suit being frivolous, baseless, without any cause of action, no locus standi, misjoinder & non-joinder of parties, time barred and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. Defendants also denied the purchase of any material by the plaintiffs from them.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed:

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.22,20,927.20/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum? OPP

2. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD

3. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands, if so its effect?OPD

4. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit?OPD

5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decided suit?OPD

6. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPD

7. Whether suit is time barred?OPD

8. Whether suit is hit by the provisions of Specific Relief Act? OPD

9. Whether the suit is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of CPC and is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC?

10. Relief.

6. The parties to the suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid.

7. On appraisal of evidence vis-a-vis pleadings, all issues were decided in favour of plaintiffs and consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed for recovery of Rs.11,34,075/- with proportionate costs against defendant No.1 only, whereas suit against defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed. Plaintiffs were also held entitled to recover interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 07.10.20