Read Order: M/S.DURAISAMY AND COMPANY AND ORS V. M/S.R.PIYARILAL AND CO., (P) LTD AND ORS 

Mansimran Kaur

Chennai, June 23, 2022: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has observed that the plaintiff, except as otherwise provided, may unite in the same suit several causes of actions against the same defendant and any plaintiffs having causes of actions in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant may unite such causes of action in the same suit.

By placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Prem Lala Nahata and another vs.Chandi Prasad Sikaria, wherein it was opined that Order I Rules 3-A, 4 and 5 makes it clear that no suit shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties, the Bench of Justice P Velmurugan dismissed the appeal which was directed against the order passed by the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court  decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.Rs.3,29,276.50 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment. 

Facts in brief for adjudication of the present appeal were that the respondents/plaintiffs were engaged in the garment export business from Mumbai. The appellants approached the respondents/plaintiffs for purchase of their garments and accordingly, the respondents/ plaintiffs placed an order to the appellants under the agreed terms. Though the appellants conceded to supply the required garments on or before January 15, 2000, however they had partly supplied the goods and which were of sub- standard quality and hence, the respondents rejected and returned the same to the appellants. When the matter reached the Trial Court, the Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 3, 29,276.50/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants/ defendants filed the present appeal. 

Ad far as the mis-joinder of parties and cause of action was  concerned,  the Court perused the plaint averments and the oral evidence of the first prosecution witness  and the documentary evidence, where there was a clear admission of business transactions of the appellants/defendants with the respondents/plaintiffs and their liability and opined that there was no mis-joinder of parties and cause of action.

With respect to non examination of the person who made entries in the ledger accounts, the Court noted that the appellants/defendants themselves had accepted the transactions and receipt of the returned defective goods. Therefore, the Bench opined that mere non examination of the person who made entries in the computerized ledger accounts was not fatal to the case of the respondents/plaintiffs. Therefore, the appellants/defendants were liable to pay the amount. 

Though the Trial Court rejected the claim of air freight charges and other damages, the respondents/plaintiffs had not challenged the same and though the respondents/plaintiffs claimed interest at 24%, since it was a commercial transaction, the Trial Court awarded only 7.5% interest which was reasonable and the respondents/plaintiffs had not challenged the same, stated the Court.

Additionally, the Court noted that the Appellate Court being a fact finding Court is required to re- appreciate the entire pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and also the judgment of the Trial Court. In view of the same, the Court observed that there was no perversity or good reason found to intervene with the said judgment.  In view of the same, the appeal suit was dismissed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment