RSA No. 3735 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3735 of 2006 Date of Decision: 29.7.2009 Kartar Singh ......Appellant Versus M/s Aulakh Kishan Sewa Kender and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Amarpreet Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant No.1-Kartar Singh, is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff on account of supply of pesticides to the defendants, was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent claimed that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (being father and son), used to purchase pesticides on credit basis and that they have failed to pay an amount of Rs.30,240/- of which pesticides have been purchased by them. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.1, it was pointed out that defendant No.2 is living separately and that defendant No.1 purchased pesticides for the sum of Rs.5070/- and Rs.1390/- and that the said amount has been paid to the plaintiff by sale of Narma Crop, in the RSA No. 3735 of 2006 (2) presence of Jagroop Singh. Both the Courts have found that the Bills for purchase of pesticides are either signed by defendant No.1 or his son-defendant No.2 and thus, found that the amount is due and payable by the defendants. It also found that the story of payment of the amount of two bills by defendant No.1 is incorrect. Consequently, the suit was decreed. The said decree has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that defendant No.1 has not authorised his son to purchase pesticides on his behalf, therefore, the liability of the payment of the price of pesticides purchased by his son cannot be fastened upon him. It is also argued that his son is living separately and, therefore, for the acts of his son, the liability cannot be fastened on the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that his son is not owner of any other agricultural land. In view of the fact that the pesticides were purchased, it has been found that the same were purchased for use in the agricultural land owned by the defendant-appellant alone. Therefore, the finding recorded cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 29-07-2009 ds