R.S.A.No.2448 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2448 of 2008 Date of Decision : 09.07.2009 Market Committee, Jalalabad and others ...Appellants Versus Manjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. S.P.Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Market Committee to proceed against the plaintiff, was decreed. The plaintiff purchased 790 bags of wheat from M/s National Traders, 105 Grain market, Bathinda. The plaintiff furnished form 'KK' to the Market Committee in view of the representation of the seller M/s National Traders, Bathinda, that the market fee stands already paid to the Market Committee, Bathinda. A demand for the payment of Rs.11,359/- as market fee and the same amount as Rural Development fund, was raised upon the plaintiff, which were challenged by the plaintiff before the Civil Court on the ground that such demand could not be raised against the plaintiff, having purchased on the strength of form 'KK' i.e. on R.S.A.No.2448 of 2008 2 deposit of market fee by the seller. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that in terms of the judgment of this Court in Market Committee, Rajpura and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another 2005(2) P.L.R. 446, the appellants have a right to frame assessment against the seller of the plaintiff and if necessary against the plaintiff as well, as the form 'KK' is said to be not a genuine document. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment has found that if the market fee has not been deposited by the seller, the remedy is with Market Committee within whose jurisdiction the transaction has taken place to seek recovery of market fee and Rural Development Fund. Since, the plaintiff has furnished form 'KK', therefore, the Market Committee is required to frame assessment against the seller of the plaintiff. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 09.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE