JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsels for the parties. 2. This First Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-M/s. Modi Ram handra Khushal Chand Sirohi on account of rejection of its plaint in Civil Suit lo. 45/87, which was a money recovery suit and came to be rejected on 19.8.1994 y the learned Trial Court of District Judge, Sirohi. In all 8 issues were framed by the learned Trial Court and except Issue No. 1, all the remaining issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff finding that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery Rs. 33,200/- with interest on account of business transaction of sale of cereals, sugar, wheat etc. Decree was passed to the extent of Rs. 33,200/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of the decree. 3. The Issue No. 1 was as to whether the plaintiff-Pradeep Kumar S/o Shanti Lal was the proprietor of M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi. The arned Trial Court decided the said Issue No. 1 in Para Nos. 15 to 21 of the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the notice served by the plaintiff Ex. 3), was on behalf of the firm-M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi and not on behalf of the proprietor Shri Pradeep Kumar. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant, Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar argued that PW-l-Pradeep Kumar and PW-)-Babu Lal were examined by the Trial Court and they have categorically stated to the said firm M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi was a fartnership firm prior to May 1984 and since May, 1984 the same was the; proprietorship concern of Pradeep Kumar and the earlier partner Shri Chhagan Lal lied in the year 1987 and since then the business in the name and style of M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi was being carried on by Pradeep Kumar has a proprietor of said firm and the transaction and money due in question was after the said proprietorship firm came into existence. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant also explained that the business in name and style of M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi continued even after Mr. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant also explained that the business in name and style of M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi continued even after Mr. Pradeep Kumar became the proprietor of the said firm since May, 1984 and since all other issues were decided in favour of the appellant and the defendant even did not produce himself or any other witness before the Trial Court, the findings on those issues are binding and since the Issue No. 1 has wrongly been decided merely on the basis of notice of M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi, the suit could not be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant, however, supported the impugned findings. 6. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the finding on Issue No. 1, this Court is satisfied that the learned Trial Court has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the said firm was not the proprietorship concern of Mr. Pradeep Kumar. There was no rebuttal of the categoric statements of PW-l-Pradeep Kumar himself and PW-3-Babu Lal (Munim), who was continuing in the said capacity from the erstwhile M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi and he has categorically stated that the said firm was converted in the proprietorship concern from May, 1984 and continuing the business in the same name and style. Since the oral evidence recorded has gone in-rebutted in the absence of any counter evidence produced in defence, the said conclusion derived by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained and the suit could not be rejected on this count alone, specially when the other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the present First Appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed and the finding on Issue No. 1 deserves to be rendered in favour of plaintiff. 7. Accordingly, the present First Appeal is allowed and holding that Mr. Pradeep Kumar was the proprietor of M/s. Modi Ram Chandra Khushal Chand Sirohi, the suit is decreed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff while upholding the findings on other issues, which are based on relevant evidence including the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. Since no defence witness or evidence was produced, the suit deserves to be decreed to the extent of Rs. 33,200/-with interest @ 6% P.A., as directed by the learned Trial Court. No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******