IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.677 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19th August, 2011 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another … Appellants Versus Jasmer Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the appellants. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Civil Misc. No. 8727-C of 2011 Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Exemption is granted from filing of typed copy of Annexure A1. Civil Misc. No. 8728-C of 2011 The present application has been filed under Ordre 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case, dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.7.2011. In the present case, no notice has been issued. For the reasons stated in the application, the present application is allowed and Regular Second Appeal No. 677 of 2011 is restored at its original number. Civil Misc. No. 1831-C of 2011 Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Regular Second Appeal No.677 of 2011 (O&M) Exemption is granted from filing of a certified copy of the judgment dated 30.3.2002 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, and its decree sheet. Civil Misc. No. 1832-C of 2011 The present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 221 days in refiling of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 221 days in refiling of the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. No. 1833-C of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The applicant/appellant is permitted to make deficiency in the Court fee good. Regular Second Appeal No.677 of 2011 The present appellants – Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through its Secretary-cum-Manager (Legal) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.32,98,758.04 paise against defendant-respondent Jasmer Singh, who at the relevant time, was posted as Sub Inspector in the office of plaintiff-appellants. It was pleaded in the suit that the respondent-defendant was working as a Sub Inspector and thereafter was appointed as an Additional Inspector with Inspector Jaswant Singh at centre Ferozepur. Thereafter, he was posted at centre Fazilka. On re-call of Inspector Jaswant Singh by his parent department, i.e. the Department of Food and Supplies, respondent-defendant Jasmer Singh took charge of the 2 Regular Second Appeal No.677 of 2011 (O&M) wheat stocks for the year 1983-84 and 1985-86. This fact is evident from charge reports dated 28th November, 1986; 18th December, 1986 and 19th December, 1986. It was a part of the defendant’s duty to effect procurement of foodgrain on behalf of the plaintiffs to store it in various godowns/plinths and to maintain accounts with regard to its procurement, storage and delivery. The case set out against the respondent-defendant employee was that due to his various acts of omission and commission, there was a shortage of wheat crop for the year 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. Since he failed to act in consonance with the norms of the corporation he had caused loss to the corporation due to his negligence and for that amount of loss the corporation was also entitled to recover interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 1st December, 1988 to 28th February, 1991 besides the interest pendente lite and future interest. The suit was contested by the employee. The trial Court decided issue No.1 (Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of Rs.23,47,870.49 paise from the defendant or not?) by holding that the plaintiff-Corporation is entitled to recover Rs.8,30,155.31 paise only. Qua issue No.2, the trial Court has held that the interest @ 12% per annum will be reasonable and the plaintiff- Corporation was entitled thereto. Thus, the suit was partly decreed. Aggrieved against the same, defendant-respondent and the plaintiff-appellants instituted two separate appeals which were assigned to the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur and the same have been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 1.4.2009. 3 Regular Second Appeal No.677 of 2011 (O&M) In the present appeal, the appellant has formulated the following substantial questions of law:- a) Whether the findings of the courts below vis-a-vis issue No.1 that the corporation is entitled to recover Rs.23,47,870.49 from the respondent are wrong since only a sum of Rs.8,30,155.31 has been decreed in favour of the corporation? b) Whether the findings of the Court below on issue No.2 i.e. the rate of interest is erroneous? So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, the trial Court held as under: “11. … … … The defendant took over the charge of wheat stock on 19.12.1986 from Jaswant Singh of 12117 bags weighing 11264.15.778 qtls. crop of year 1983-84 and all these wheat stocks were unhealthy and already rejected by the FCI, 408 bags were completely damaged and unfit for human consumption with worst conditions of gunny bags. At the time of charge, there was shortage of 450.94.222 qtls. due to bad condition of wheat stocks and shortage occurred amounting to 1947.02.778 qtls. due to delay in dispatch and delivery and unhealthy conditions of wheat stocks as admitted by the District Manager himself during his cross examination… … …” After accounting for the loss accrued to the appellant- corporation, the trial Court held that they are entitled only to the excess in wheat to the extent of 1 kg per quintal. This norm has been passed by the department of PUNSUP. The Court relying upon the Grains Manual 4 Regular Second Appeal No.677 of 2011 (O&M) Govt. Godowns Ministry of Food and Supplies, Research Division, held the plaintiff-corporation entitled to recovery of Rs.8,30,155.31 from the defendant. This finding has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence threadbare and have formulated conclusions on the basis of appreciation of evidence. Qua the second substantial question of law, no interference is warranted, as the Courts below have rightly granted 12% per annum interest in favour of the plaintiff-appellants instead of 18% per annum interest. This finding also suffers from no infirmity. Thus, the questions formulated as the substantial questions of law are purely questions of fact in view of the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts below, this Court will be hesitant to adjudicate upon the questions of fact in the Regular Second Appeal. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Civil Misc. No. 1834-C of 2011 Since the main appeal viz. Regular Second Appeal No. 677 of 2011 is dismissed on merits, therefore, no orders are called for in the present application for condonation of delay of 251 days in filing of the appeal. Hence, the same is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 19, 2011 RC/rps 5