IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.322 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.4.2010 Jagat Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Daya Nand Arrival Recorder, Maket Committee, Jind ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for claiming damages from the respondent has been dismissed. As per averments made in the suit, the plaintiff-appellant is doing the business of fruit and vegetables in shop No.36 in the New Vegetable Market, Jind and is the licence holder of the Market Committee, Jind and the defendant-respondent is working as an Auction Recorder in the Market Committee, Jind. It was further averred that the defendant- respondent was harassing the appellant for an ulterior motive and used to check the account books and stock registers of the appellant though it was not his duty. On account of this act and conduct of the respondent, the appellant suffered a lot and thus, was entitled to damages. Vide this suit, the appellant claimed damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the Court fee of Rs.150/- only was affixed. The appellant undertook to pay the court fee on the damages as granted by the Court. Upon notice, the defendant-respondent contested the claim by RSA No.322 of 2010 (O&M) -2- filing written statement raising various preliminary objections. Upon merits, the material averments were denied and it was submitted that he was performing his duty only. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding of fact that the defendant-respondent who was an employee of Market Committee, Jind, was acting in discharge of his official duty. While dismissing the suit, the Courts below also held that the present suit was nothing but an abuse of process of law. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the respondent was acting in discharge of his official duty and therefore, there was no question of appellant's suffering any damages on account of any of the action of the respondent. While recording the aforesaid findings, the Courts below have also observed that the plaintiff-appellant had never approached the senior officers of the respondent alleging any deviation from official duties or with regard to any act and conduct of the respondent and therefore, no cause of action arose in his favour to claim damages or compensation from him. In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, which is without any merit. Dismissed with costs throughout. CM No.896-C of 2010 Since the appeal has been decided on merits, no separate orders are required to be passed in this application. April 7, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE