RSA No.4888 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4888 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 22 , 2009 Paramjit Singh ...........Appellant Versus M/s Interiors and Exteriors and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Paramjit Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.38,562/- (Rs.26,332/-as principal amount and Rs.12,240/- as interest). The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Paramjit Singh was dismissed, by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “ 2.Briefly stated, it was pleaded before the lower Court by Paramjit Singh that he is an expert in wood craft and runs his RSA No.4888 of 2009 (O&M) 2 business at 504-D, Model Town, Jalandhar. He is a proprietor of M/s Wooden Craft, Model Town, Jalandhar. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are interior decorators and contractors. They provide carpenters and other such labour to their customers on contract basis. The above said defendants approached him to perform the wood work in the office of M/s GRI Industries (defendant No.4). The rates were settled in the presence of Baljit Singh and Kamal Kishore and in pursuance of the said order, the plaintiff completed the wood work for a total remuneration of Rs.60,732/- out of which he was paid Rs.34,410/- by defendants No. 1 to 3, leaving a balance of Rs.26,332/-, which they failed to pay. In this regard, a registered notice dated 19.10.1999 was also served upon them. Hence a suit. 3. Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 3 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, no cause of action, locus standi of the plaintiff and suit being barred by time and on merits. It was denied that the plaintiff is proprietor of M/s Wooden Craft, Model Town Jalandhar. The total labour contracted by the plaintiff was worth Rs.10,000/- and the said amount was paid to him through cheque and there remained nothing to be paid to him. It was denied that any order was given to the plaintiff by the defendants worth Rs.60,732/-. As no payment is due, hence, the question of payment does not arise. No notice was ever served upon the defendant. Defendant No.2 has nothing to do with the plaintiff nor there is any privity of contract between her and the plaintiff. RSA No.4888 of 2009 (O&M) 3 All other contents of the plaint were denied and it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed. 4. A separate written statement was file by defendant No. 4 by taking the preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel and there being no privity of contract between the parties and on merits, it was admitted that defendant No.4 engaged defendant No.1 for doing the necessary job but the answering defendant has no concern with the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff had been working on behalf of defendant No.1 but the answering defendant had no reason or business to know about the nature of relationship between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3. There was no contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.4 regarding interior decoration of his office, as such defendant No.4 is not liable to pay anything to the plaintiff. It was admitted that construction of his office furniture was made at his premises by the plaintiff. All other contents of the plaint were denied and it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant along with interest and costs?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 3.Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of the necessary parties?OPD RSA No.4888 of 2009 (O&M) 4 4.Whether the plaintiff has estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 5.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6.Whether this suit is within time?OPP 7. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery against the defendants on the ground that total payment of work done by the plaintiff had not been made to him. Plaintiff is running the business of wood work. Plaintiff was engaged by defendant No.2 to perform wood work at the premises of defendant No.4. The contract between the parties was an oral one. Plaintiff placed reliance on bills Exhibit P1 to P3 qua the rates of the concerned items but the said bills were never attested/affirmed by the defendants. Learned Additional District Judge, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, observed that the plaintiff had failed to plead as to what was the nature of work performed by him and in how many days, the said work was done. Whether the plaintiff had arranged for the material besides labour. The said facts were also not disclosed by Satnam Singh and Mohal Lal Carpenters examined by the plaintiff. In support of his case, defendant No.4 had admitted that the plaintiff was engaged to perform some wood work at his premises and were hired by defendant No.1 . Since there was no written contract between the parties, the onus to prove his case was heavy on the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the said onus. It has been observed by the learned RSA No.4888 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Additional District Judge in the judgment that Exhibit P8 is the bank statement of defendant No.1 mentioning some payments by defendant No.1 but the said fact did not establish that defendant No.1 was liable to pay Rs.60,732/- to the plaintiff and after payment of Rs. 34410/-, Rs.26332/- were still due. The learned Additional District Judge, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, has given a finding of fact that the amount in question was due against the defendants. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 22, 2009 arya