R.S.A. No. 798 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 798 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.2.2009 Smt. Sunita Uppal .......... Appellant Versus Union of India & others. ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 24.10.2008 and 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant against terminating her agency stands dismissed. The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to challenge the order passed by the respondent in terminating the agency of the appellant-plaintiff which was in force for the last 15 years The case set up by the plaintiff appellant was that she was declared the best agent and there was no complaint, whatsoever, except one on the basis of which her agency stood terminated. The plea raised by the plaintiff was, that it was not a case for terminating the agency, as she was not at fault. Plaintiff had introduced fictitious person bona fide believing her R.S.A. No. 798 of 2009 2 to be genuine, and also keeping in view that she had earlier account with the Post office. The learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the allegations against the appellant plaintiff stood proved, by her pleadings, and by the fact that the amount wrongly withdrawn was deposited by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the finding recorded by the learned Courts below by raising the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the adverse inference could have been drawn against the respondents, as they failed to lead any evidence to show that the stolen cheques deposited in the account No. 445991. The respondents further failed to furnish any proof as no person claimed Rs. 25,000/- from the post office ? 2. Whether in view of the deposit of Rs. 25,000/- by the plaintiffs he was entitled to the relief claimed ? 3. Whether the suit of the appellant-plaintiff should have been decreed in view of no wrongful loss to the department nor any wrongful gain to the appellant ? In support of the substantial questions of law the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the averments made in the plaint, showing that there was no specific allegation against the appellant. The defendant respondent failed to prove the allegation by leading evidence on record. R.S.A. No. 798 of 2009 3 It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff in order to meet the objections of the department, that the amount was wrongly withdrawn though it was not her legal obligation to deposit the amount. Finally the learned counsel for the appellant contends that as no loss was caused to the department there was no occasion to cancel the agency. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff/appellant failed to produce on record the terms of the agency, and show that right existed to continue with the agency, which was specifically enforceable against unwilling party. The plaintiff was required to stand on his own leg and could not take benefit of lapse, if any, on the part of the defendant. Even otherwise the findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be perverse as it is based on the pleadings of the plaintiff and her conduct in depositing the amount. It was proved on record that the person introduced by her was fictitious person and was not available at the given address. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed in limine. 18.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE