RSA No.2578 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2578 of 2011 Date of decision 9 .8.2011. Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation Limited and others . ...... Appellants. versus Jatinder Kumar ...... Respondent. RSA No.2579 of 2011 Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation Limited and others . ...... Appellants. versus Surekha Garg ...... Respondent. RSA No.2580 of 2011 Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation Limited and others . ...... Appellants. versus RSA No.2578 of 2011 2 Mangat Ram ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate for the appellants, in all the three cases. K.C.PURI . J. By this common order, I intend to dispose of Regular Second Appeal No.2578 of 2011, Regular Second Appeal No.2579 of 2011 and Regular Second Appeal No.2580 of 2011 filed by Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation Limited, since the common question of law is involved in all these three appeals, therefore, these are taken up together for discussion and decision. For convenience, facts are being taken from Regular Second Appeal No.2578 of 2011. Challenge in these appeals are the judgment and decrees dated 18.9.2010 passed by Shri M.P.S.Pahwa, Additional District Judge, Mansa vide which the appeals preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2009 passed by Shri Naval Kumar, PCS, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budhalada were dismissed. Briefly stated the plaintiffs in three suits filed for recovery. It is alleged that they are running the business of commission agent and have supplied the paddy for the amount mentioned in the plaints. The part payment of the said amount has been paid and the amount mentioned in the plaints is still recoverable from the defendants. RSA No.2578 of 2011 3 On put to notice, defendants filed joint written statements taking preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability, locus standi, non service of legal notice apart from misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties. However, it is admitted that plaintiff firm is working as Commission Agent and that it has supplied the -paddy but it is pleaded that the paddy was not supplied in accordance with Bill and less paddy was supplied and the amount in question has been withheld on that account. Replications were filed, denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in all the three cases :- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.1.01,117.80ps?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice ?OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties ?OPD 6. Relief. RSA No.2579 of 2011 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.1.78,664.94ps?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice ?OPD RSA No.2578 of 2011 4 5. Whether suit is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties ?OPD 6. Relief. RSA No.2580 of 2011 From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in all the three cases :- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount of Rs.41.526.07ps?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice ?OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties ?OPD 6. Relief. The parties have led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff as narrated in the judgment and decree-sheet dated 27.5.2009 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till actual realization. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgments and decrees dated 27.5.2009, the appellants have filed three separate appeals. The said appeals were dismissed vide judgment and decrees dated 18.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgments and decrees dated 18.9.2010 and 27.5.2009 in all the three cases, the appellants have filed the present three separate appeals. RSA No.2578 of 2011 5 Since the common question of facts i.e. whether the quantity of paddy supplied was less to the appellant is involved and as such all these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. The appellants in paragraph No.12 of the grounds of appeals have mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen :- i) Whether there is total misreading of facts and evidence by the learned District Judge while ignoring the material and relevant piece of documentary evidence which is a serious error in law vitiating effect on the findings? ii) Whether without giving valid notice as required under section 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Act, the suit can be instituted ? Iii) Whether the court can grant the decree if there was a shortage of 68.85 qutls of paddy ? The only controversy raised during the course of arguments is that less quantity of paddy was supplied and the amount has been withheld on that account. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that defendants/appellants have failed to prove that quantity of paddy supplied to them is less as detailed in the written statement. So, that being a finding of fact cannot be interfered in the regular second appeal. There is nothing on the file that there is misreading of fact by both the Courts below. No objection was raised at the time of getting the paddy from the plaintiff. So, both the Courts below have rightly held that defendants/appellants cannot withheld the payment of the remaining amount which is alleged to be the short supply of the paddy. So, in view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants stand determined against the appellants. RSA No.2578 of 2011 6 Consequently, there is no merit in the appeals, the same stand dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE August 09, 2011 sv