RSA No.1635 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1635 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2009 Omega Kitchen Ware ......Appellant Versus SVM Cera Tea Build Limited ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The brief facts of the case as per the plaint are that the appellant-firm was engaged in the business of manufacturing of Enamel utensils and kitchenwares, gift packs etc. and the respondent was a regular supplier of raw material to the appellant. During the course of business, the material supplied by the respondent proved to be of inferior quality. The appellant requested the respondent to replace the material and to pay the damages. The appellant also issued legal notice calling upon the respondent to make good the outstanding payment as well as to replace the defective material or to issue the credit notes on the basis of the debit note issued by the plaintiff-appellant and at the time of filing of the suit, a sum of Rs.79,560/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 1.7.2001 till the date of its actual realization was due towards the respondent in the accounts of plaintiff-appellant. The respondent filed the written statement controverting the allegations of the appellant and inter alia pleaded that the suit was filed as RSA No.1635 of 2006 (O&M) 2 a device to avoid the payment of Rs.2,83,129.32 paise which was outstanding against the appellant. The raw material was being supplied to the plaintiff-appellant on demand. It was also stated that the defendant- respondent neither resides at Sonepat nor works for gains at Sonepat and the Civil Courts have got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. After perusing the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, the trial Court partly accepted the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant so far it related to lifting of rejected material from the premises of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to lift the material within one month from the date of judgment. However, suit for recovery of Rs.79,560/- along with interest was rejected. The issue of jurisidiction was also held against the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, both the parties filed appeals. The Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.11.2005 accepted the appeal filed by the defendant whereas appeal filed by the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed and the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of damages and for mandatory injunction was dismissed with no order as to costs. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. As per the pleaded case of the appellant, raw material supplied by the defendant-respondent was of sub-standard and the same was rejected by the appellant. However, the defendant-respondent did not give credit of the same to him. sAdmittedly, no payment was made towards price/value of the raw material to the defendant by the plaintiff- appellant. Thus, when the plaintiff-appellant has not made payment of the raw material, he cannot enforce any recovery against the defendant for not RSA No.1635 of 2006 (O&M) 3 giving credit to him for rejection of the said material. Thus, no fault can be found with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant was also unable to find fault with the findings of the Courts below on the issue of jurisdiction. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 14, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE