RSA No.1871 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1871 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2011 M/s Laxmi Rice Mills ……Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Manu Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.5785-C of 2010 This is application by appellant for condonation of delay of 479 days in re-filing the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. Averments made in the application taken at face value do not constitute any ground much less sufficient ground for condonation of long delay of almost 16 months in re-filing the appeal. There are vague, general and specious averments only in the application to seek condonation of such long delay. Long delay of almost 16 months cannot be condoned on such vague, general and specious ground. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. RSA No.1871 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - Main appeal. Since application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal has been dismissed, the appeal is liable to dismissal on this ground. However, even on merits, the appellant cannot succeed. Defendant No.1-M/s Laxmi Rice Mills has filed the instant second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondent No.1-plaintiff-State of Punjab filed suit against defendant No.1-appellant and its partners defendant Nos.2 to 6 for recovery of Rs.8,11,504.39P. Case of the plaintiff is that paddy was given to the defendants for milling. However, quantity of rice returned by the defendants was short by 570.45.160 quintals of PR 106 quality and 1903.53.340 quintals of IR8 quality, amounting to Rs.6,44,051.13P after deducting milling charges of the defendants. In addition to it, plaintiff also claimed interest amount of Rs.1,67,453.26P at the rate of 12% per annum till filing of the suit. Defendants broadly denied all the plaint averments. The defendants denied having received any paddy for milling from the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded that no quantity of rice is to be returned by them to the plaintiff. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.1995 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal RSA No.1871 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - preferred by defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that impugned agreement Ex.P-2 under which paddy was to be supplied for milling by plaintiff to defendants does not bear signatures of the defendants. The contention cannot be accepted. The said agreement is proved to have been signed by defendant No.5- Kulbhushan Nath through whom the instant appeal has been filed by partnership firm defendant No.1. In addition to it, defendants No.2 to 5 also furnished affidavit that they are partners of defendant No.1- firm and that the firm had received the quantity of paddy as pleaded by the plaintiff and the firm-defendant No.1 was yet to deliver the quantity of rice as pleaded by the plaintiff. The defendants also stood surety for payment of money if the said quantity of rice is not returned. All these documents have been proved by the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit has been rightly decreed. Learned counsel for the appellant very emphatically contended that receipt of paddy was allegedly signed by Nipan Kumar, who has no concern with defendant No.1-firm. The RSA No.1871 of 2010 (O & M) - 4 - contention is on first blush appears to be attractive, but the same is in fact devoid of merit. Nipan Kumar is none else, but son of Ajit Rai- defendant No.3. It has come in evidence of the plaintiff that Nipan Kumar signed the receipt at the instance of defendant No.3 in his presence. Mr. Nipan Kumar, who is none else, but real son of defendant No.3, has not stepped into the witness box to deny the aforesaid receipt executed on behalf of defendant No.1-firm. Consequently, very strong inference arises against the defendants. It may be added that said Nipan Singhi has now been impleaded as respondent No.5a being one of the legal heirs of Ajit Rai-defendant No.3. However, said Nipan Kumar did not step into the witness box giving rise to adverse inference against the defendants. Defendants also alleged that their signatures were obtained on blank papers in police custody. However, if defendants’ version is to be believed, no document produced by the plaintiff bears their signatures. It is beyond comprehension as to what for the plaintiff obtained signatures of defendants on blank papers if the same were not to be used. The defendants have taken the aforesaid stand to explain their signatures on the documents in question, but they have miserably failed to do so. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The said finding is not depicted to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Hence the RSA No.1871 of 2010 (O & M) - 5 - said finding does not call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 19.05.2011. A.kaundal