R.S.A. No. 1126 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1126 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 29, 2011 Shri Partap Rice and General Mills …..Appellant Vs. M/s Pangli Traders …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery has been decreed by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the grave error has been committed by the Courts below while decreeing the suit against the defendant- appellant –Shri Partap Rice and General Mills whereas the plaintiff- respondent has been able to show the liability of Partap Rice and General Mills. R.S.A. No. 1126 of 2011 (O&M) [2] I have carefully considered the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant in context to the evidence produced. It has been found, on appreciation of various official documents Exs. P1 to P-6 indicating that the paddy in dispute was actually purchased by the defendant- appellant firm from the plaintiff- respondent firm and that the price of said paddy was not paid by the defendant- appellant firm or its partners to the plaintiff- respondent firm. The income tax returns of Shri Partap Rice and General Mills indicate that the liability of the defendant- appellant firm has been admitted in the statements appended with the tax returns. No substantial question of law is involved to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact determining the liability of the defendant- appellant. Dismissed. March 29, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE