IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2477 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30th June, 2010 M/s Dagar Bhatta Company Budana … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. This is a revision petition directed against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of Rs.21,489/- pronounced by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari vide his judgment dated 31st July, 2007, which in appeal was affirmed by the Court of District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and order dated 25th April, 2008. The petitioner-plaintiff had set out a case that he was running a brick-kiln in village Budana, Tehsil and District Rewari and he had supplied bricks on various dates for the construction of Government Primary School, Rajpura/Alamgirpur. Failure to make the payment necessitated filing of a suit. It was averred that payment of Rs.13,920/- along with interest of Rs.7,569/-, total amounting to Rs.21,489/- was due at the time of filing of the suit. The defendants had denied to have placed any order in writing or received the bricks. In evidence, the defendants proved that the bricks were received from M/s Civil Revision No.2477 of 2010 (O&M) Om Parkash Bhatta Company, which was duly entered into the records and payment was made. The entire case of the petitioner-plaintiff is based on the evidence of Partosh Jain PW-3, sole proprietor of the firm, who stated that the order regarding supply of the bricks was placed by a peon from the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Furthermore, it was stated that the peon had brought a photocopy of the written order Ex.D1 issued by the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. However, in cross-examination, this witness admitted that the signatures of Block Development and Panchayat Officer were not on the purchase order and name of the peon was also not divulged. Secondly, the plaintiff relied upon the evidence of Kartar Singh PW-2, who was a driver of vehicle No.HRO-3468. This witness stated that he had delivered 3000 bricks and they were received by Narinder Singh, Headmaster. He further stated that the delivery of bricks was signed by Narinder Singh, Headmaster and the receipts were proved as Ex.PW2/2, Ex.PW2/3 and Ex.PW2/4. Narinder Singh, Headmaster had not been examined, nor was he impleaded as a party to the suit. Nowhere, it has been stated that Kartar Singh driver was acquainted with the signatures of Narinder Singh, Headmaster. Contrary to this, Birender Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rewari, DW-1 stated that no order in writing was issued in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Rather, the bricks were supplied by M/s Om Parkash Bhatta Company vide bill No.334 dated 6th January, 1997 and the payment was made to them on 31st January, 1997. The stock register Ex.D1, receipt Ex.D2 and supply order Ex.D3 were also proved. Ranbir Singh, Junior Engineer DW-2 also proved from the official record that the bricks were received from another company and not from the petitioner-plaintiff. 2 Civil Revision No.2477 of 2010 (O&M) Both the courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner-plaintiff was not entitled to payment of the alleged supply of bricks. The trial Court returned the following finding to dismiss the suit: “18. There is no purchase order and bricks were supplied by the plaintiff firm without any written contract and as there is no evidence that those bricks were used for the construction of a room in Government Primary School Rajpura/Alamgirpur and in these circumstances defendants are not bound to pay the price of the bricks to the plaintiff firm. However, the plaintiff firm can recover the price of the bricks from Narender Singh, Headmaster who has received the bricks and issued the receipts regarding that. Accordingly, issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiff.” The above said finding has also been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, shall refrain to re-appreciate the evidence of the witnesses, upon which the well reasoned finding has been returned by both the courts below. No patent illegality or infirmity in the judgments of both the courts below has been pointed out, which requires interference of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE June 30, 2010 rps 3