R.D. Dhanuka, J.—By this summons and judgment the plaintiff seeks that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in this suit against the defendant for Rs.11,32,569.54 and for interest and costs.

2. The suit is based on an invoice dated 26th January, 2008. The Plaintiff is registered partnership firm and carries on business of manufacturing of Ayurvedic products under the head of “Noorani Tel (Oil)”. It is the case of the plaintiff that vide invoice dated 26th January, 2008, the plaintiff supplied a bulk of quantity of Noorani Tel (Oil), an Avurvedic product to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 6,99,117. The said goods were delivered to the defendant. The defendant received the invoice. There is no dispute that in respect of the earlier transaction held between the plaintiff and the defendant, payment has been already made by the defendant to the plaintiff.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that since defendant did not make payment in respect of invoice dated 26th January, 2008, the plaintiff through his advocate’s notice dated 16th July, 2008 called upon the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.7,74,966 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant received that notice but did not give any reply nor made payment to the plaintiff. The defendant contacted a partner of the plaintiff and requested for some discount and for some time for making the payment. The plaintiff therefore filed this suit for recovery of Rs.11,32,569.54 with further interest at the rate of 24% per annum and cost.

4. The defendant filed affidavit in reply.

5. The defendant through the Learned Counsel made the following submissions:

(a) The suit has been filed by Mr. Shiv Prasad Shukla claiming to be an authorised signatory of the Plaintiff without any authority of law. The partners of the firm are not joined as co-plaintiffs alongwith firm and thus suit is not maintainable.

(b) The suit is barred by limitation and is without any cause of action.

(c) The suit has been filed for recovery of price for the goods alleged to have been sold to the defendant which were given by way of replacement in lieu of some of the goods sold between 23rd May, 2005 to 1st May, 2007 which were without requisite statutory disclosures and under the sales promotion incentive schemes. No payment was thus due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

(d) Though both the parties carry on business in Mumbai and the alleged goods were sold in Mumbai, notice dated 16th July, 2008 issued by advocate Mr.V.K.Jaiswal practicing at Allahabad is issued with malafide intention. It is submitted that large number of competent advocates in Mumbai are available for legal advice and thus notice should not have been issued through an advocate practicing at Allahabad. Suit is not maintainable on this ground alone.

(e) The alleged authorised representative of the Plaintiff who has filed suit was earlier working with the Defendant and has joined hands with the Plaintiff for filing the suit.

6. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff on the other hand submits as under:

(a) The suit is validly filed by the authorised signatory of the plaintiff. All the partners had authorised Mr. Shiv Prasad Shukla who is working with the Plaintiff and is conversant with the facts. Such authority letter dated 5th May, 2010 has been filed alongwith the plaint and the original whereof was verified by the Notary Public who had attested his signature on the plaint and affidavit in support.

(b) It is not necessary to make all the partners as Co-plaintiffs in the suit with the firm under Order XXX, Rule (1) read with Rule (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(c) The suit is filed for recovery of price for goods supplied vide invoice dated 26th January 2008. The suit is lodged on 8th September, 2010. The suit is thus within time and not barred by law of limitation.

(d) The suit has been filed on the basis of invoice issued in respect of the goods sold and delivered and is accepted b