IN THE COURT OF AD-JUDICATOR AT ALLAHABAAD

HIGH COURT.

R.S. No. AIR All 139 / 1946

In the matter of;

Bahori Lal And Anr.
………………Appellant

Versus

Sri Ram And Anr.

…………. Respondent

1
SUIT FOR THE DAMAGES IN BREACH OF CONTRACT
UNDER CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908
Respected:-

These are two connected appeals, one by Bahori Lal plaintiff and the other by Chhidda
plaintiff arising out of two suits filed by them for damages. Both the suits were partly
decreed by the Court of first instance but on appeal the learned Civil Judge has
dismissed both of them with costs. The two suits were consolidated in the Court of the
learned Munsif and they were disposed of by a common judgment dated 29th February
1940. Similarly, the appeals arising out of the two suits were disposed of by the learned
Civil Judge by a common judgment dated 31st July 1941. It will, therefore, be
convenient to dispose of both these appeals to this Court by one common judgment.

The relevant facts necessary for purpose of these appeals are briefly these: Sri Ram
and Joti Prasad, defendant-respondents, presented an application to the Court of the
Insolvency Judge at Agra on 22nd November 1937 against Bahori Lal and Chhidda,
plaintiff-appellants and one Sundar Lal It was alleged that these three persons were
indebted to them inasmuch as a decree of the Court of small causes at Agra for Rs. 656-
6-6 in favor of the applicants was outstanding and that Chhidda plaintiff-appellant was
further indebted to Joti Prasad on the basis of a promissory note for Rs. 150, that these
three persons were concealing and disposing of their property and they had also given
notice to these creditors that they had suspended payment of their debts and that
Bahori Lal had already disposed of his house with a view to defraud the creditors. On
these allegations it was prayed that Bahori Lal and Chhidda appellants be declared as
insolvents and an Official Receiver be appointed to seize their property. The learned
Insolvency Judge adjudged these persons as insolvents and their property was seized
by the Official Receiver. On appeal to the learned Civil Judge by Chhidda and Bahori
Lal, the order of the learned Insolvency Judge was set aside and their property was
released and they were also allowed costs of both the Courts. Thereafter Bahori Lal
and Chhidda instituted suits Nos. 454 and 460 of 1939 respectively against Sri Bam
and Joti Prasad for recovery of damages on the ground that the insolvency proceedings
had been taken by the two defendant-respondents maliciously and without reasonable
and probable cause. Each of these suits was for the recovery of Rs. 500 as damages and
it was alleged in these suits inter alia that the plaintiffs had suffered much physical and
mental pain and had been disgraced and lowered in the estimation of their friends and
caste fellows. Issues:

The defendant-respondents contested both the suits on these grounds:

(1) That the insolvency proceedings were not started maliciously and without
reasonable and probable cause;

(2) That the present suits for damages for such proceedings were not maintainable;

(3) That the amount of damages claimed was excessive;

(4) That the suits were barred by limitation and also by the provisions of Section
26, Provincial Insolvency Act

2
 PRAYER

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the Suit for damages in

breach of contract under CPC that the insolvency
proceedings taken by the defendant-respondents were
malicious and without reasonable and probable cause,
that a suit for damages in these circumstances was
maintainable.

It is further prayed that the suits were within time and they
were not barred by the provisions of Section
26, Provincial Insolvency Act. Regarding the amount of
damages, however, the learned Munsif found that
Chhidda appellant suffered a loss of Rs. 10 on account of
his absence from his business while attending the Court
in connexion with the insolvency proceedings. He further
held that each of the two plaintiff-appellants suffered a
loss of reputation in society and he estimated that Rs. 50
was a fair and reasonable compensation for each of them
on this account. In the result the suit of Chhidda appellant
was decreed with proportionate costs for Rs. 60 and the
other suit of Bahori Lal appellant was decreed for Rs. 50
with proportionate costs against the two defendants. The
rest of their claims was dismissed.

Plaintiff

Through

Counsel(s)

3
 VERIFICATION

Verified on oath at Allahabaad on this day 13th of Aug. 1946,

that the contents of paragraphs are correct to the best of my
knowledge and I belief that, rest of the paragraphs are believed
to be true and correct as information received.

Allahabaad

Dated: 02.05.2017

Plaintiff

Counsel for the Plaintiff

(RAJAT KUMAR
PANDEY)