Civil Revision No.3900 of 2009 (O&M) -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3900 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 16, 2009. M/s Sheena Export & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Nafe Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat whereby suit for recovery of Rs.18,705/- has been decreed along with pendent lite and future interest @ 6% per annum, as well as against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008 of the Additional District Judge, Panipat, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above mentioned judgment of the civil court. Since the decretal amount is less than Rs.25,000/-, the defendants have filed this revision petition. Briefly stated, the case of the respondent-plaintiffs was that the plaintiff-firm is in the business of manufacturing and supply of handloom Civil Revision No.3900 of 2009 (O&M) -: 2 :- goods of export quality; petitioner No.1 firm, which is a sole proprietorship concern of petitioner No.2, placed various orders with the respondent- plaintiffs-firm in the months of January/February, 2004 for supply of export quality of handloom goods and the same were supplied on mutual agreement that the petitioner-defendant shall make payments against each bill within 15 days on the receipt of the bill failing which the petitioners were liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum. It was averred that the goods worth Rs.9,06,637.40 were purchased by the petitioners from the respondent-plaintiffs who made payment of Rs.8,91.512/- only. In this manner, according to the respondent-plaintiffs, the petitioners were liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,124.40 as principal amount and a sum of Rs.3,582/- as interest thereupon @ Rs.18% per annum. In support of their claim, the respondent-plaintiffs relied upon the bills Ex.P1 to P17, legal notice Ex.P18, the postal receipts and acknowledgment thereof (Ex.P19 and P20), as also another bill dated 31.3.2004 (Ex.P21), copy of bill Mark-PA besides the oral evidence. The petitioners also examined one witness, Narender Singh (DW1) and further relied upon the ledger account statement of the respondent-plaintiffs (Ex.D1). On a consideration of the aforementioned evidence and the pleadings and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners did not dispute the factum regarding receipt of goods worth Rs.9,06,637.40 but could prove the payment of Rs.8,91.512/- only, the civil court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The first appeal preferred by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge after holding as follows:- “A thorough look at the pleadings as well as evidence Civil Revision No.3900 of 2009 (O&M) -: 3 :- adduced by both the parties shows that the plaintiffs in paras no.5 and 6 of the plaint have given the details of the bills as well as the balance amount and in response to the said pleadings in the corresponding paras no.5 and 6 of the written statement on merits, the defendants have simply stated that it is a matter of record and the defendants have not at all pleaded that the payments of the suit amount was not due towards them. Thus, the admitted case of both the parties is that the plaintiffs had supplied goods as per orders of the defendants to the tune of Rs.9,06,637.40 and against this amount, the defendants had paid an amount of Rs.8,91.512/- and the dispute only pertains to the amount of Rs.15,124.40 being principal and Rs.3582/- being interest amount. The reason for non-payment of this amount, as has been mentioned in the written statement, is that some of the material supplied by the plaintiffs was found defective in the passing process and was rejected and the defendants had rightly issued debit note to the plaintiffs. However, to substantiate the aforesaid stand, no evidence, worth the name has been led on behalf of the defendants.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the impugned judgments as well as the pleadings of the parties. In my considered view, no case to interfere with the judgments under challenge is made out. In para 5 of the plaint, the respondent-plaintiffs have given complete details of the bill numbers, dates and their amounts in order Civil Revision No.3900 of 2009 (O&M) -: 4 :- to establish that goods worth Rs.9,06,637.40 were supplied to the petitioner- defendants. As against this, the petitioners made payments of Rs.8,91,512/- through different cheques, the details of which have also been pleaded in para 6 of the plaint. It would be apposite to reproduce the stand taken by the petitioners in para 5 and 6 of their written statement, to the following effect:- “5. That para No.5 of the plaint is matter of records. 6. That para No.6 of the plaint is matter of records. That the defendants have already made all payment to the plaintiffs and the same have been received by the plaintiffs with no objection. Loss by way of defective pieces supplied by the plaintiffs and rejected in passing process, then the loss to the defendants is to be tolerated by the plaintiffs only. Debit notes issued by the defendants are to be accepted and tolerated by the plaintiffs themselves. The pieces defective is the manufacturing defect and proof of the same is passing process which rejected them. Defects amount upon the manufacturer only. Defendants are not liable to tolerate the said loss. Hence debits notes rightly issued to the plaintiffs. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.” The first appellate court has rightly observed that not even iota of evidence has been led by the petitioner-defendants to prove that any defective goods were supplied or the same were ever rejected or returned to the respondent-plaintiffs. The concurrent findings of fact returned by the courts below is liable to be accepted, which is based upon correct appreciation of evidence Civil Revision No.3900 of 2009 (O&M) -: 5 :- and pleadings of the parties. No case for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is, therefore, made out. Dismissed. July 16, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge