A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent herein has obtained a decree in the sum of Rs. 1,68,040/- plus costs as well as pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p. a. This decree has been passed in Suit No. 144/2000 filed by the respondent against the appellants. Challenging the said judgment and decree, present appeal is preferred. The suit filed by the respondent was founded on the averments that he is a manufacturer, dealer and supplier of chemicals,. e. bread improver, and running his business from B-11, Badarpur Extension, New Delh. He was approached by the appellants in connection with the purchase of said chemical, which was supplied by the respondent to the appellants in four consignments on different dates against which following bills were raised :- Bill No Date Amount 151 1. 4. 1999 40,000. 00 156 10. 5. 1999 40,000. 00 162 12. 6. 1999 40,000. 00 167 4. 8. 1999 40,000. 00 These bills are in the name of M/s. Sindhwani Traders. ( 2 ) IT was alleged by the respondent that payment of the said supplies was not made by the appellants even when the amount was to be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the material. The appellants came to the respondent again and assured that the amount would be paid in instalments along with interest of rs. 8,040/-, which had become due, and requested for supply of further material. Accordingly, vide Bill No. 205 dated 22. 3. 2000 material worth Rs. 16,000/- was supplied and payment in cash was made against the said supply. However, the amount of Rs. 1,68,040/- was not paid in spite of demands and even after serving notice dated 21. 5. 2000 thereby forcing the respondent to file the suit in question. ( 3 ) IN the cause-title, the appellant No. 1 (defendant No. 1 in the said suit) was shown as authorised representative of M/s. Sindhwani Traders. In fact, the appellants are all related to each other. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 are brothers and appellant No. 4 is the wife of appellant No. 3. ( 4 ) ALL the four appellants, who were arrayed as defendants, filed common written statement. They denied any relationship between the respondent and M/s. Sindhwani traders. It was also alleged that the appellant No. 1 was running his own separate business. 1 to 3 are brothers and appellant No. 4 is the wife of appellant No. 3. ( 4 ) ALL the four appellants, who were arrayed as defendants, filed common written statement. They denied any relationship between the respondent and M/s. Sindhwani traders. It was also alleged that the appellant No. 1 was running his own separate business. M/s. Sindhwani Traders was, in fact, a partnership firm of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3. Receipt of any such material/bread improver against the afore-mentioned bills was denied. It was also denied that no such bill/invoice was signed or any receipt issued by them in favour of the respondent and they were not having any business dealings with the respondent. Though receipt of notice dated 21. 5. 2000 was admitted, but it was contended that the demand therein was false, mischievous and mala fide as no amount was recoverable by the respondent from the appellants and, therefore, there was no question of replying to the said notice as well. ( 5 ) ON the basis of pleadings, the following six issues were framed by the court below :- "1. Whether suit of the Plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties" OPD 2. Whether Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit" OPD 3. Whether Plaintiff has no cause of action against answering Defendants" opd 4. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to amount claimed" OPP 5. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for which period" OPP 6. Relief. " ( 6 ) ISSUE Nos. 1 to 3 were taken up together and decided in favour of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit in question ). On issue No. 4, which was also decided in favour of the respondent, the learned trial court returned the findings that the respondent had proved that he had effected supplied for which the aforesaid bills for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- were raised. Decree in the terms, as noted above, has accordingly been passed. We may point out at this stage that the respondent examined himself as PW-1 and proved the aforesaid bills as Ex. PW-1/7 to PW-1/10. He stated that three consignments were received by the appellant No. 4 on behalf of M/s. Sindhwani Traders and she signed the receipts. The fourth consignment was received by the appellant No. 1, who signed the receipt. PW-1/7 to PW-1/10. He stated that three consignments were received by the appellant No. 4 on behalf of M/s. Sindhwani Traders and she signed the receipts. The fourth consignment was received by the appellant No. 1, who signed the receipt. These receipts are on blank slips. English translation of the three receipts, which were signed by the appellant No. 4, is in the following words :- 1. 1. 25 packets of BIO-MIX have been received. Sd /- Anju Rani 1-4-99 2. 25 packets of BIO-MIX have been received. Sd /- Anju Rani 11-5-99 3. 25 packets of BIO-MIX have been received. Sd /- Anju Rani 12-7-99" The fourth receipt, which is purportedly signed by the appellant No. 1,contains the following endorsement :- Received 500 kgs. improver Sd /- 4-8-99" The respondent further deposed that the material was supplied through the aforesaid receipts and bills used to be supplied after the receipt of the goods by the appellants. ( 7 ) THE appellants produced Smt. Anju Rani (appellant No. 4) as DW-1, Shri Rajesh sindhwani (appellant No. 1) as DW-2, Shri Jatinder Sindhwani (appellant No. 2) as dw-3. In her statement (examination-in-chief), the appellant No. 4 admitted that she received material on 1. 4. 1999, 11. 5. 1999 and 12. 6. 1999 (sic: 12. 7. 1999) vide the three receipts, but came out with the version that the material was in 25 packets of 1 kg. each. She also mentioned that the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were partners in M/s. Sindhwani Traders and they had their shop at Pahari Dheeraj and further that she was never authorised by M/s. Sindhwani Traders to receive any material. DW-2, Mr. Rajesh Sindhwani, deposed that he used to supply material to bakeries but at the time of deposition he was unemployed and he has nothing to do with M/s. Sindhwani Traders and also that he was never authorised by M/s. Sindhwani Traders to receive any material. DW-3, Mr. Jatinder Kumar, stated in his statement that he was partner of M/s. Sindhwani Traders along with his brother Mr. Jagdish Kumar and that he had never authorised Mr. Rajesh Sindhwani to receive any material and M/s. Sindhwani Traders had not received any material from the respondent/plaintiff against the bills filed by the respondent. DW-3, Mr. Jatinder Kumar, stated in his statement that he was partner of M/s. Sindhwani Traders along with his brother Mr. Jagdish Kumar and that he had never authorised Mr. Rajesh Sindhwani to receive any material and M/s. Sindhwani Traders had not received any material from the respondent/plaintiff against the bills filed by the respondent. ( 8 ) IT is clear from the above that though in the written statement, which was jointly filed by all the appellants, they had denied any business relationship or acquaintance with the respondent and further denied that no material at all was received from the respondent after the respondent had produced the bills (Ex. PW-1/7 to PW-1/10), on which the receipts were also pasted. The appellant no. 4 admitted the receipt of material vide said receipts. She, however, improved her case by stating that material received was in the form of 25 packets of 1 kg. BIO-MIX. Further case which was sought to be set up in the evidence was that since M/s. Sindhwani Traders was a partnership firm only of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and the material was received by appellant Nos. 1 and 4, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 had not authorised the appellant No. 1 to receive material on their behalf. ( 9 ) THE learned trial court held that on balance of probabilities, the respondent had proved that material was supplied to the appellants and they were liable to make payment. The relevant portion of the judgment containing discussion on this aspect is extracted below :- "finding on Issue No. 4 12. Onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff whose case is that he used to supply Bio-mixture material to the Defendants. In support of his case plaintiff examined himself and proved bills Ex. PW1/7 to PW1/11 and its ledger. Copy of the same containing the account of the Defendants Ex. PW-1/6. This bills were issued in the normal course of business. Though, on the one hand defendants are taking the plea that they have not dealing with the Plaintiff and the plea that they have no dealing with the Plaintiff (sic) and they have not received any material. On the other hand they acknowledgment of Defendant No. 4 on the slips attached to the bill which clearly shows that Bio-mixture material was received in 25 packets by the Defendant No. 4 on behalf of Defendants. On the other hand they acknowledgment of Defendant No. 4 on the slips attached to the bill which clearly shows that Bio-mixture material was received in 25 packets by the Defendant No. 4 on behalf of Defendants. Though, it is stated that she was receiving material on behalf of Defendant no. 1. Defendant No. 1 has taken the plea that he works at Rohtak and has no concern with the business at Delh. There is one bill which bears the acknowledgement of Defendant No. 1 which is Ex. PW-1/10 which clearly shows that the Defendant has received 500 kg of Bio-mixture. All these bills which were sent in normal course of business including in the acknowledgement of the defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 1 on the bills clearly shows that Defendant has received material against these bills which were raised in normal course of business vide notice which is Ex. PW1/1 which was duly served on the Defendant and Defendants have not cared to reply to the notice and take any defence is belated and after thought. At this stage it is stated that they have not any dealing with the Plaintiff and they are liable to make payment of the billed amount due from them. Hence, Plaintiff has proved his case on balance of probabilities by leading documentary and oral evidence on record and proved this case on balance of probabilities. " The trial court also noted that apart from the aforesaid four deliveries, material was also supplied to the appellants vide Ex. PW-1/11 for a sum of rs. 16,000/- against payment, for which there was no denial. The appellants had also not replied to the legal notice and these facts corroborated the case of the plaintiff/respondent. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the bills were not signed and only receipts were signed and from bare perusal of these receipts it could not be established by the respondent as to how much material was supplied against the said consignments and what was the rate agreed upon. He further submitted that bills were raised in the name of M/s. Sindhwani Traders, which was a partnership firm of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and the same was allegedly received by the appellant No. 1 and 4, who had no concern with M/s. Sindhwani traders. He further submitted that bills were raised in the name of M/s. Sindhwani Traders, which was a partnership firm of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and the same was allegedly received by the appellant No. 1 and 4, who had no concern with M/s. Sindhwani traders. His submission was that if it is presumed that the material was supplied to M/s. Sindhwani Traders, then the appellant Nos. 1 and 4 have no liability. On the other hand, if the material is supplied to the appellant Nos. 1 and 4 respectively, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be held liable. He also submitted that the delivery of material vide Ex. PW-1/10 was not at all proved as there was no acknowledgment of receipt of the material vide said receipt even as per the receipt pasted on Ex. PW-1/10. ( 11 ) AS already noted above, the four appellants are related to each other. They also filed common written statement. In their written statement there was complete denial of any business relationship with the respondent/plaintiff and also receipt of any material. They have changed their version in evidence. The delivering of 3 consignments (evidence of the appellant No. 4) was admitted but the improvement is sought to be made by trying to explain away the things by stating that the packets were of 1 kg. each. Thus, from the stance taken earlier viz. that of receipt of no material, the stand was changed whereby receipt of material was admitted but quantum is denied and it is sought to be alleged that bills are not proved. It would be significant to point out that the respondent in his evidence had categorically deposed that four consignments were of 500 kgs. each. In the receipt signed by the appellant No. 4, quantity of 500 kg. is specifically mentioned. The statement given now that these packs were of 1kg. each cannot be believed. No doubt, there is no acknowledgment on the bills. However, the respondent had entered these bills in his books of accounts and the ledger as well. The ledger book was produced as Ex. PW-1/6. Even in the cross-examination of the PW-1, the appellants had adopted the stance that there was no receipt of the material. The appellants went to the extent of putting suggestion to PW-1 that the said receipts were false, forged or procured ones. The ledger book was produced as Ex. PW-1/6. Even in the cross-examination of the PW-1, the appellants had adopted the stance that there was no receipt of the material. The appellants went to the extent of putting suggestion to PW-1 that the said receipts were false, forged or procured ones. As far as the rate at which material is supplied is concerned, it stands established from PW-1/11 against which payment was made. Even legal notice was not replied to. Therefore, it cannot be believed that supplies effected contain 25 packets of 1 kg. of Bio-mixture each and the version of the respondent that the supplies were of 25 packets of 20 kgs. each at the rate of Rs. 80/- per kg. has to be believed. ( 12 ) WE, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court on different issues. However, bills are drawn in the name of the partnership firm. It is established on record that the appellant nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. The appellant No. 1 and 4, therefore, would, at the most, be treated as agents who received goods on behalf of the firm. They cannot be held liable. Decree against the appellant Nos. 1 and 4 is, therefore, set aside. The appeal, accordingly, is allowed to this extent. Decree against the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 is maintained and their appeal is dismissed. No costs.