RSA No.307 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.307 of 1986 Date of decision 19.4.2011 M/s Gurdaspur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Appellant Gurdaspur v. Daljit Singh etc. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma,Advocate with Mr.Gagan Oberio,Advocate for the appellant Mr.P.S.Goraya,Advocate for the respondents .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1985, passed by learned First Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 7.8.1985, passed by the learned trial Court were affirmed. The facts, in brief, are that Daljit Singh and others (sugarcane growers)-respondents supplied sugarcane to the Sugar Mills,Paniar, in the years 1981-82, 1982-83. The payment was to be made to the sugarcane growers within a period of 14 days of the delivery of the sugarcane to the Mill. The payment was made to the respondents beyond the period of 14 days, but they were not paid the interest due on delayed payment of sugarcane @ 15% per annum in terms of Section 3-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order,1966, introduced by the Government by Notification No. GSR 62(E) dated 2.2.1978. The respondents prayed for RSA No.307 of 1986 2 mandatory injunction as a consequential relief directing the appellant-Sugar Mill to pay the interest as prayed for by the respondents. The Appellant-Mill, contested the suit of the plaintiff- respondents on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in the present form in view of the bar created by Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act, as the plaint discloses no cause of action. The Ld.trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents and observed that the plaintiffs-respondents (sugarcane growers) supplied sugarcane to the Appellant-Mill and they are entitled to interest @ 15% per annum on delayed payments for the years 1981-82, 1982-83. The Ld. Ist Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the ld.trial court. Aggrieved by which, the appellant-Sugar Mill filed this regular second appeal, which was admitted on 10.3.1986. Mr.Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 34 and 41 (h) of the Specific Reliefs Act. He further submits that the respondents-plaintiff in order to save the ad-volrem court fee on the suit for recovery cleverly drafted the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction for the payment of interest from the appellant-Sugar Mill. The respondents-plaintiffs have to file a suit for recovery of money. His next argument is that respondents have failed to bring on record the material facts in the absence of which the suit could not be decreed. He further submitted that the respondents can avail alternative remedy, if there was any violation of the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966. In support of his arguments, he RSA No.307 of 1986 3 placed reliance on L.I.C of India v. Iqbal Kaur (J&K) (D.B.) 1984 AIR (J&K)1 and Chief Engineer, C.Z.T.C v. Dayal Construction Co. (Uttaranchal) 2005 AIR (Uttaranchal) 34. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents is maintainable and is not barred in view of the Section 34 and 41(h) of the Specific Reliefs Act. He further submits that the Ld.trial court has rightly granted 15% interest for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 on the delayed payment and the appellants are bound to pay the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant do not appeal to this court, as it is suit for mere declaration of right that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the interest on delayed payment of more than fourteen days. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the suit is maintainable. The relief claimed in this suit is squarely covered under Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no bar in granting such relief of mere declaration especially when sub-rule 3-A of Rule 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966 provides for payment of interest on the amount due at the rate of 15% per annum for the period of such delay beyond 14 days on the payment for the sugarcane purchased by a producer of sugar from the cane grower. Under Order VII, Rule 2 , where the plaintiffs seek the recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise amount claimed, but here is suit for declaration of a right of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to interest as per the RSA No.307 of 1986 4 provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order,1966 for which there is no impediment for granting such relief of declaration of a right. No substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. In Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, it has been held as under: “The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.” There is no scope to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts of both the courts below. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 19.4.2011 MS Note:Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.