Regular Second Appeal No. 4120 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4120 of 2010 Date of decision : November 01, 2010 State of Punjab and another ....Appellants versus M/s K.K.Rice and General Mills ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants-State of Punjab and District Food and Supply Controller having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below have filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-respondent M/s K.K.Rice and General Mills through its proprietor Khushal Chand Vohra filed suit for recovery of ` 16,34,000/- against defendant-appellants alleging that the plaintiff supplied levy rice to defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 has not paid amount of ` 7,44,126/- of bill dated 30.12.2000, ` 2,43,801/- of bill dated 12.4.2001 and ` 1,30,824/- of bill dated 3.7.2001. The said amount has been withheld by the defendants on the ground that Food Corporation of India (FCI) has withheld the same Regular Second Appeal No. 4120 of 2010 -2- on the plea that plaintiff misappropriated paddy belonging to FCI. The plaintiff alleged that defendants have no right to withhold the price of levy rice supplied by the plaintiff to defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed recovery of ` 16,34,000/- which included interest @ 12% per annum. The defendants admitted supply of levy rice by plaintiff to defendant no. 2 and also admitted withholding of price of levy rice as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded that they paid the price of levy rice to the plaintiff as and when the amount was received from the FCI. The defendants also pleaded that FCI has withheld the disputed amount as per its letter dated 29.5.2001 because plaintiff has misappropriated paddy of the FCI and there is dispute between the plaintiff and FCI which has been referred to arbitration. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2006 decreed plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the levy rice given by plaintiff to the defendants was given by defendants to FCI and FCI has withheld the payment thereof because the plaintiff misappropriated the paddy of FCI and therefore, defendants are not liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. The contention is completely untenable Regular Second Appeal No. 4120 of 2010 -3- and devoid of any substance. Admittedly, the plaintiff supplied the levy rice to the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the price of the levy rice from the defendants. If there is any dispute between plaintiff and FCI regarding alleged misappropriation of paddy of FCI by the plaintiff, the said amount cannot be withheld by the defendants and plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from the defendants. FCI cannot recover the suit amount in this manner from the plaintiff. FCI may resort to due process of law for recovery of the amount if any payable by the plaintiff to the FCI. However, merely because the FCI claims that some amount is recoverable from the plaintiff by the FCI on account of misappropriation of paddy, the defendants cannot withhold the amount payable by them to the plaintiff. The dispute whether any amount is recoverable by FCI from plaintiff is to be adjudicated upon by competent authority or court in separate proceedings and on account of that dispute, the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the suit amount which is recoverable by plaintiff from the defendants. There is concurrent finding of both the courts below which have been arrived at on the basis of material on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 01, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'