Judgment : Debangsu Basak, J. The suit was for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered. The original Defendant No. 1 was a registered partnership firm of which the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners. The Defendant No. 1 was registered by under the Calcutta Tea Trading Association. The composition of the Defendant No. 1 changed from a partnership firm to the sole proprietorship of the Defendant No. 4. Necessary amendment to the plaint was carried out in that regard. The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statement. On April 30, 2013 the Advocate for the Defendant No. 2 obtained leave to retire. Such leave was granted. By the Order dated April 30, 2013 the plaintiff was requested to serve notice on the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. An affidavit of service affirmed on June 3, 2013 was filed which showed that the plaintiff despatched notices to the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by registered post with acknowledgement due card. The postal envelope came back with the remark not known. The plaintiff caused issuance of two subpoenas to two banks. The authorized representatives of such bank pursuant to such subpoena produced the documents which were marked as exhibits. The plaintiff adduced evidence through its witness. I considered the case of the plaintiff and the evidence adduced on its behalf. The Defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff and purchased tea from the plaintiff for various quantities. The plaintiffs duly sold and delivered such tea to the Defendant No. 1. At that point of time, the Defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm of which the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners. The plaintiff raised invoices on the Defendant No. 1 for the tea sold and delivered. The invoices were marked as exhibits in the proceedings. The total amount outstanding by the Defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff was Rs.14,96,835.54p. The Defendant No. 1 issued nine several cheques for the entirety of such invoice amount. Two of the cheques were honoured upon presentation. The remaining seven were dishonoured upon presentation. The plaintiff established the presentation of the seven cheques and the factum of their dishonour. Subsequently, the Defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs.3 lakh to the plaintiff. In aggregate the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 6 lakh from the Defendant No. 1 against the invoice price of Rs.14,96,835.54p. The remaining seven were dishonoured upon presentation. The plaintiff established the presentation of the seven cheques and the factum of their dishonour. Subsequently, the Defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs.3 lakh to the plaintiff. In aggregate the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 6 lakh from the Defendant No. 1 against the invoice price of Rs.14,96,835.54p. The plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to the balance sum of Rs.8,96,835.54p. from the defendants. At the time when the transaction was entered into the Defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm of which in the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners. The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were, therefore, liable coextensively as that of the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 subsequently became a sole proprietorship concern of the Defendant No. 4. There will be, therefore, a decree for a sum of Rs.8,96,835.54p. against all the defendants jointly and severally. Such decree will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum on and from the last date of the cheque issued by the Defendant No. 1 being March 30, 1999 until the plaintiff receives payment in its entirety. C.S. No. 474 of 1999 is decreed accordingly. The decree will be drawn up by the department expeditiously.