RSA No. 2697 of 2005 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2697 of 2005 Date of decision: September 1,2008 Darpan Puri ..Appellant. Versus Rajinder Singh ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. C.L.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, advocate for the respondent. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. Defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2005 of the lower Appellate Court, whereby it has upheld the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent(herein) for recovery of Rs.78325/- along with interest at the rate of 6 % P.A. The appellant was owner of STD/PCO connection at Ahiyapur Tehsil Dasuya. Appellant received a sum of Rs.78325/- from the respondent on 4.6.1997 and handed over the possession and control of the STD/PCO owned by him and executed a receipt-dated 4.6.1997. As per the terms of the receipt, the defendant waived her all rights in the said STD/PCO. The respondent took the possession of the STD and continued working there till 13.12.1998. The appellant gave an application to the Telecommunication authority to disconnect the STD with malafide intention and got it disconnected on 14.12.1998. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.78325/- along with interest at the rate of 18 % P.A. till the date of realization of sale amount. The suit was contested by the appellant stating therein that she never sold STD/PCO connection and the receipt of amount of Rs.78325/- was on account of the fittings, fixtures and other articles lying in the shop and not for the RSA No. 2697 of 2005 2 connection. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent vide its judgment-dated 4.8.2004. From the receipt Ex.P1, it is clear that defendant Darpan Puri received a sum of Rs.78325/- vide which the plaintiff purchased STD/PCO No.22724. The defendant herself admitted that after 4.6.97 as she had received the whole consideration amount she will not interfere in the STD/PCO. She admitted that after execution of receipt Ex.P1 the plaintiff became absolute owner of STD/PCO. So from the recital of Ex. P-1 and from the statement of PW1 Subhash Chander, Plaintiff Rajinder Singh PW2 and from the own admission of the defendant receipt dated 4.6.97 Ex.P1 is duly established. As the defendant after moving application before the Telecommunication Department got the STD connection disconnected and on request she failed to restore the same to the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of Rs.78325/- along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum which is the most prevalent and reasonable rate of interest in such like matters. As such, both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The appellant filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur challenging the said judgment and decree of the trial Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. In the present appeal by challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit for recovery has been decreed on the ground that the telephone connection of the appellant was disconnected at his instance. However, there is no such evidence on the record. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff- respondent has not sold the telephone connection as the same could not have been sold legally. However, the courts below have decreed the suit ignoring these points. I find no force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant executed receipt Ex. P-1 on 4.6.2007. English version of the said receipt is reproduced as under: - RSA No. 2697 of 2005 3 “We Darpan Puri d/o Shri Brij Mohan Puri r/o Ahiapur P.S.Tanda Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur part to the first part and Rajinder Singh s/o Pritam Singh r/o Ahiapur Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur party to the second part. Darpan Puri-the party to the first part is running a STD PCO No.22724 in Shop No.3 near Raghunath Mandir Ahiapur has handed over the possession of the said furnished shop which is on rent, and consisting of one STD PCO Moniter D. Ji. Control, three telephone set, one battery, two sunmika counters and one plywood/wooden sound proof cabin, five chairs (one type & four plastic chairs) one sealing fan, one exhaust fan, one iron PCO display stand and one fancy gate made of wood and glass to Sh. Rajinder Singh party to the second part on receipt of the consideration and the balance of the advance rent paid to Raghunath Mandir through Sanatan Dharam Mandir Sudhar Sabha Ahiapur Registration No.1173 along with the copy of this deed on 4.6.1997. Party to the second part shall get the STD PCO allotted in his name at the earliest. The party to the first part can withdraw the security money deposited by her on its maturity and shall not get the licence renewed.” It is crystal clear from this receipt that it was agreed upon between the parties that the appellant can withdraw the security money deposited by her only on its maturity and shall not get the licence renewed meaning thereby the licence of the appellant for running the PCO was to continue until its date of expiry. However, no evidence has been led in this regard by the appellant whereas admittedly, the Telephone connection was got disconnected by her by making an application violating the terms of the agreement. The argument of the learned counsel to the effect that the telephone connection could not have been sold legally is also without any basis. The appellant has not led any evidence on record to establish that it is against law to transfer the licence of PCO connection to a third party. Infact the appellant has not pressed any issue in this regard. The RSA No. 2697 of 2005 4 courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent after appreciating the evidence on record and has recorded a pure finding of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decrees. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. No merit. Dismissed. September 1, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE