An agent acting on behalf of a disclosed principal bears no personal liability for contractual obligations. Furthermore, the mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not constitute proof of its contents; the burden remains on the claimant to demonstrate the veracity of its entries.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellant – original plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 1983 by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Jamnagar.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.K. Vakharia for the plaintiff, learned advocate Mr. C.J. Vin for defendant No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Rohan Lavkumar for Nanavati Associates for defendant No. 2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is a body corporate, constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, having an installation at Vadinar Port which is known as off shore Oil Terminal, where facilities are provided for discharging the cargo of crude oil brought in tankers. It is further the case of plaintiff that M/s. Indian Oil Corporation – defendant No. 4, had chartered the vessel named M.T. IRINIO to bring Oil from foreign country and the same was to be unloaded at the off-shore Oil Terminal at Vadinar. The plaintiff was informed by defendant No. 1 that the vessel is expected to arrive on 11th February, 1982 at 15:45 hours and was to anchore at the anchorage at Vadinar Port at or about 04:36 hours on 12th February, 1982. Defendant No. 1 paid an advance deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 14.02.1982 towards charges and dues of plaintiff for various services. Defendant No. 3 is the Master, who submitted the Arrival Report. As per the Arrival Report, all charges shall be paid by defendant No. 1. Plaintiff claimed Rs.12,12,921/- towards various charges and dues from defendants. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged its liability and promised to deposit the amount. The quantity of bunker was to be supplied to the vessel by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 sailed away the vessel on the night of 16/17th March 1982 without obtaining port clearance certificate and without paying the dues of the plaintiff. An invoice was raised in respect of various services rendered by plaintiff to the said vessel. As per the case of plaintiff, defendant No. 1 is liable to pay an amount of Rs.14,12,921.10 paisa. The net amount after deducting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- out of the total sum of Rs.14,12,921.10 paisa, comes to Rs.12,12,921.10 paisa. The plaintiff, therefore, was constrained to file a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,13,066.10 paisa including interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 16.02.1982 from all defendants jointly / severally. The summons of the suit was duly served to defendants. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement at Exhibit – 13. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement at Exhibit – 33. Defendant No. 3 remained absent and the suit was proceeded ex-parte against defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 4 – Indian Oil Corporation was not joined at the initial stage of the suit but was joined as defendant No. 4, during the pendency of the suit. Defendant No. 4 filed written statement at Exhibit – 43. The defendants denied their liability. Defendant No. 4 raised the contention of limitation. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Court below framed following issues at Exhibit – 62:

(1) Whether the Plaintiff’s suit is not maintainable as it is filed without authority.

(2) Whether the plaintiff’s suit is bad for misjoinder