R.S.A.No. 1700 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1700 of 2009 Date of Decision:August 17, 2009 M/s Dashmesh Handloom ---Appellant versus M/s Diamond Overseas ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. K.C.Rajput,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – M/s Dashmesh Handloom had filed a suit for rendition of accounts. Civil Judge ( Jujior Division), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 4.6.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2008. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed civil suit for rendition of accounts against the R.S.A.No. 1700 of 2009 -2- respondents/defendant(hereinafter referred to as the defendant) with the averments that plaintiff firm and its sister concern “M/s Satnam Handloom Industries, Panipat” were running the business of manufacturing of Handloom products at Panipat. Shri Dinesh Singh was the manager/proprietor of the defendant firm. Earlier, in the month of November, 1999, the defendant through its Manager/proprietor placed a running order to the plaintiff for manufacturing or handloom darries of various kinds and sixes and plaintiff firm accordingly supplied the goods on the order, during the period 28.12.1999 to 26.1.2000. At the time of delivery of consignment, the plaintiff firm requested the proprietor/manager of the defendant firm to render and settle the account regarding the said delivery. The defendant firm made apart payment, but the final account was not settled so far. Later on, when the account was not settled, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 14.11.2000 upon the defendant, but of no avail. It was alleged that as per the account of the plaintiff, a net debit balance of Rs. 31048/- was outstanding against the defendant, which was to be recovered from the defendant along with interest. 3. Defendant has contested the suit and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and court fees etc. 4. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff had ever supplied any goods to the defendant. It was alleged that it was M/s Satnam Handloom Industries, Panipat, which had supplied R.S.A.No. 1700 of 2009 -3- the Darries to the defendant, for which the payment was accordingly made vide different demand drafts. It was also denied that M/s Satnam Handloom Industries Panipat was sister concern of the plaintiff firm. All other averments made in the plaint were also denied and the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff was prayed for.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether plaintiff is entitled for rendition of account as alleged in plaint? OPP (2)Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (3)Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct for filing the present suit? OPD (4)Whether this court has not no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD (5)Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (6)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for rendition of accounts. However, the goods had been supplied by M/s Satnam Handloom Industries, Panipat, which was closed in the year 2001 whereas, the suit was filed by M/s Dashmesh Handloom. In these circumstances, both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record had held that defendant R.S.A.No. 1700 of 2009 -4- had not purchased any goods from the plaintiff-firm and hence defendant was not liable to render any account to the plaintiff firm. The firm that had supplied goods to the defendant stood closed in the year 2001. Plaintiff firm had failed to establish that it could sue the debtors of M/s Satnam Handloom Industries, Panipat. The said finding by the courts below do not call for any interference. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2009 PARAMJIT