RSA No.1678 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1678 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2009 Rajiv Ahuja ...........Appellant Versus Punjab State etc. ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj,Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Rajiv Ahuja filed a suit for recovery of Rs.71,02,795.57 The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jalandahar partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2004 with proportionate costs for the recovery of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment on the principal amount of Rs.40,03,848 regarding which the decree dated 29.8.2002 had already been passed in the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and vide judgment and decree dated 2.6.2008, the learned Additional District Judge, (Adhoc) Jalandhar modified the same to the extent that the payment of interest be made @ 17½% from the date of the issuance of delayed bills till the realization. Hence, the present appeal. RSA No.1678 of 2009(O&M) 2 The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned District Judge in para 2 of its judgment reads as under:- 2.As per averments of the plaint, Rajiv Ahuja, Sole Prop. of M/s Ahuja, filed suit against the Punjab State, for the recovery of Rs.71,02,595.57 paise on the ground that due to insurgency, the Punjab Police was provided with different types of vehicles to keep law and order situation under control. The Punjab police within the Distt. of Jalandhar had been sending different types and makes of vehicles to the plaintiff for repairs and supply of spare parts since 1990 and the work was done to the entire satisfaction of the defendants. Plaintiff had been spending huge amount from his own pocket to keep the vehicles of the Distt. Police in order and in workable condition. In order to provide the services to defendant, the plaintiff had been taking loan from the Finance Institution and individuals so that the repair work supply of the parts to the defendants is not effected. At no point of time, any objection was raised by the defendants-appellants regarding the quality of the work of the material supplied to them but the payment of the bills in respect of supply of Auto parts and repair of the vehicles was not being made by the defendants and at the time of filing of the suit, a sum of Rs.45,55,180.47 paise was due from the defendants which they have not paid despite repeated demands and requests. After the service of the notice under Section 80 CPC the defendants paid a sum of Rs.43,038/- on 12.4.2000 and after adjusting the said amount a balance of Rs.45,12,142.47 paise was still due. The plaintiff has suffered RSA No.1678 of 2009(O&M) 3 loss due to the non-payment of the amount in question by the defendants. On the other hand, plaintiff himself has been paying interest to the financial institutions and individuals and as such he is entitled to the interest @ 24% P.A. as per agreement, business usage, customs and also on account of damages. It is further averred that it is mentioned in the bills that in case the payment is not made within 30 days from the date of bills, the customer has to pay interest @ 24% per annum till the date of actual payment. Hence, a sum of Rs.45,12,142.47 paise as principal and Rs.25,47,615,10 paise as interest was outstanding against the defendant which they have not paid, which necessitated the filing of the suit which was contested by the defendants that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is time barred. It has further been averred that some repair work was got done from the plaintiff firm but it is denied that a sum of Rs.45,12,142.47 paise was due from the defendants. According to the defendants only a sum of Rs.40,03,848/- was due to be paid as per the detail contained in annexure E.D1 attached with the written statement. Further, the plaintiff has already received a sum of Rs.1,12,427/- after the filing of the present suit and there is no dispute between the parties. The defendants are ready to pay a sum of Rs.40,03,848/- after receiving the funds from the State Govt. Even earlier the defendants had been making payment to the plaintiff on the availability of the funds. There was no condition that the payment would be made within any specified period and there is no question of any interest. The payments were to be RSA No.1678 of 2009(O&M) 4 made subject to the availability of the funds from the State Govt. and after getting the permission from the Director General of Police, Punjab. Other averments of the plaint were vehemently denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made." On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.71,02,795.57 paise along with interest? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether suit is time barred ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Relief" After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs,71,02,795.57 paise. Defendants admitted that a sum of Rs.45,12,142.47 paise was outstanding against the plaintiff. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.40,03,848/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff as well as defendants filed their appeal. In appeal, as is evident from the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff had only argued on the question of enhancement of rate of interest. The learned Additional District Judge RSA No.1678 of 2009(O&M) 5 agreeing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff has enhanced the rate of interest to 17½ % per annum from the date of issuance of delayed bills till its realization. Since the point of recovery of the remaining amount claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was not agitated in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, the same cannot be agitated now in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 12, 2009 arya