RSA No. 697 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 697 of 2009 Date of Decision: 09.05.2011 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Gurmail Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jitender Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent-caveator **** L.N.MITTAL, J (ORAL). Plaintiff No. 1 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has filed the instant second appeal having failed in both the courts below. Suit was filed by plaintiff No. 1-appellant and by its District Manager against defendant-respondent Gurmail Singh for recovery of Rs.12,86,361.62 i.e. Rs.8,35,299.62 as principal amount and Rs.4,51,062/- as interest @18% per annum till filing of the suit. Plaintiff No. 2 was not party in first appeal and has also not been impleaded as party in the instant second appeal. Plaintiffs' case is that defendant-respondent was posted at Samana centre of plaintiff No. 1 and was the sole incharge of the said centre. Shortage of wheat stored in the said centre was found. Claim in the instant suit is regarding amount of the said shortage of wheat along with interest thereon. Defendant-respondent contested the suit pleading that the RSA No. 697 of 2009 -2- shortage was natural and it was within the permissible limit as per PR manual. It was also pleaded that the suit on behalf of plaintiff No. 1- appellant has not been filed through duly authorised person. Various other pleas were also there. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.1996 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff No. 1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2008. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No. 1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heared learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Suit on behalf of plaintiff No. 1-appellant was filed through its Managing Director. According to the resolution passed by plaintiff No. 1 as produced in evidence, Additional Managing Director and Secretary-cum- Manager (Legal) were authorised to file suits on behalf of plaintiff No. 1. It is, thus, manifest from the resolution of plaintiff No. 1 itself that Managing Director was not authorised to file the suit on behalf of plaintiff No. 1. Consequently, it has been rightly held by the courts below that the suit on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 was not filed through duly authorised person. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Managing Director is senior to Additional Managing Director who was authorised to file the suit and, therefore, the suit filed by the Managing Director on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 cannot be said to be without authority. This contention cannot be accepted. Plaintiff No. 1, by resolution, specifically authorised Additional Managing Director to file suits on its behalf. Consequently, Managing Director cannot be said to have authority to file suit on behalf of RSA No. 697 of 2009 -3- plaintiff No. 1 merely because Managing Director is senior to Additional Managing Director. There is, thus, no infirmity in the finding of the courts below that suit on behalf of appellant-plaintiff No. 1 was not filed through duly authorised person. The defendant had dispatched 1,34,497 quintals 62 kgs and 500 gms of wheat stock and handed over the charge of 37,988 quintals 31 kgs and 759 gms wheat to his successor Malkiat Singh and, thus, there was shortage of 498 quintals 5 kgs and 741 gms in the wheat stock. The said shortage was much less than the prescribed shortage of 1800 gms per quintal of wheat allowed on the one year old stock as per P.R. Manual of plaintiff No. 1-appellant itself. Consequently, the said shortage was within the permissible limit. The defendant cannot be held liable to pay the amount of said short quantity of wheat. Apart from the above, plaintiff alone was not responsible for safe custody of the stock in question and other officials were also associated with the same. However, plaintiff has been held to be solely responsible for the shortage by filing the instant suit for the entire amount of the short quantity of wheat against defendant only. Even according to own instructions of plaintiff No. 1-appellant, liability for shortage of stock has to be apportioned amongst all concerned employees in specified proportions. It was not so done in the instant case. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the second appeal. The concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below is justified by the evidence on record and, therefore, it does not call for intereference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction because the said finding is neither perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of RSA No. 697 of 2009 -4- evidence. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (L.N.MITTAL) JUDGE May 09, 2011 divyanshi