RSA No.506 of 1987 (O&M) -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.506 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: July 22, 2011. M/s Surjit Cold Storage & Ice Factory & Anr. ... Appellant(s) v. M/s Anant Ram Shamvir & Anr. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mrs. Alka Sarin, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri Karan Singh, Advocate, for Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. By way of this common judgment, RSA No.506 of 1987 (M/s Surjit Cold Storage & Ice Factory & Anr. v. Anant Ram Shamvir & Anr.) and Cross Objections No.16-C of 1987, preferred by respondent No.1 – M/s Anant Ram Shamvir, shall be decided together. A suit for recovery of Rs.5250/- was instituted by M/s Anant Ram Shamvir against M/s Surjit Cold Storage & Ice Factory through Colonel Inderjit Singh and Smt. Surjit Kaur. It was stated that M/s Anant Ram Shamvir was a registered partnership firm and their partner Anant Ram was fully authorized to file the suit. It was stated that M/s Surjit Cold Storage & Ice Factory had purchased one electric motor for a sale RSA No.506 of 1987 (O&M) -: 2 :- consideration of Rs.25515.70 and out of the total price, they had paid Rs.25,465.00. Thereafter, another electric motor was purchased on 27.4.1981 for a sale consideration of Rs.25,256.09. Furthermore, another starter, one switch and one fuse was purchased for Rs.8294/-. Out of total amount of Rs.33,550.09, Rs.30,000/- were paid to the plaintiff to the suit. Thus, after giving details of sale made and the amount received, it was stated that Rs.3600.79 were due as principal and Rs.1650/- as interest @ 18% per annum. The total claim made in the suit was for recovery of Rs.5250/-. The defendants upon notice, filed written statement. They took a plea that the genuine electric motor was not supplied. Payment of Rs.25,465/- was made through cheque and the remaining amount was paid in cash. It was stated that the present suit has been instituted as a counter blast to the suit filed by the defendant-firm for recovery of Rs.32,000/-, in the alternative for replacement of electric motor. After conclusion of pleadings, issues were framed; parties had led their evidence. While deciding issue No.1, the court held that plaintiff- firm being registered could sue the defendants through their partner Anant Ram. While deciding issues No.2 and 3, the court held that the payment has been made by the defendants and, thus, had dismissed the suit. On appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant, this finding was reversed by the lower appellate court by observing as under:- “7. ... Therefore, I must hold that on the basis of the entries made in the account books, copies of which have been produced by the defendants, it is difficult to hold that the defendants had paid the amount in question to the plaintiff. RSA No.506 of 1987 (O&M) -: 3 :- Consequently, it has to be held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount in question from the defendants. The contrary decision given by the learned trial court on issues No.2 and 3, is therefore, incorrect and erroneous and, as such, the same is hereby reversed and I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.3600.79 Ps from the defendants.” However, the lower appellate court held that since plaintiffs have not proved any agreement between the parties, therefore, defendants are not obliged to pay interest. Thus, the suit was decreed for Rs.3600.79 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till date of the passing of the decree and from the date of the decree till realization of the amount with proportionate costs throughout. In the present regular second appeal, the above stated finding given by the lower appellate court has been assailed whereas in the cross objections, non-award of interest @ 18% has been challenged. After hearing Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court suffers from no infirmity. Purchase of electric motor has not been challenged, rather a definite stand has been taken that the payment of Rs.25,465/- was made through cheque. A bald assertion has been made that the remaining amount has been paid in cash. No receipt to this effect has been proved. Therefore, the court has rightly re-assessed the evidence led by the plaintiffs to the suit. Furthermore, the amount of recovery is too meagre to be disturbed in the regular second appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal and the cross RSA No.506 of 1987 (O&M) -: 4 :- objections are dismissed as no point of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised before me during the course of arguments. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 22, 2011. Judge kadyan