RSA No.590 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.590 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 8, 2011 M/s.New Kissan Rice Mills, Mamdot .....Appellant v. Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. .... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.1630-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.1631-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.590 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.7.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 24.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ferozepur, vide which suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff to claim compensation was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. RSA No.590 of 2011(O&M) -2- Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit by taking the plea that appellant-plaintiff is a registered firm and that Tarlochan Singh is one of its registered partners, who has filed the present suit on behalf of the firm. Plea is taken that appellant-firm had been running a business of manufacturing the rice and Saila plant in the premises in dispute and, however, during the mobilization of Army alongwith the International border on 20th December 2001, the Army unit of defendant No.3 moved in the said premises of plaintiff-firm and occupied the said premises as they found it fit and safe for their future planning, as a result of which the operation of the Saila plant of the plaintiff remained totally closed, due to which he has suffered loss of `33,96,000/-. Hence, the present suit for recovery of the said amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of occupancy of the said premises till delivery of its actual possession to the appellant-plaintiff was filed. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants contested the suit mainly on the ground that the same is not maintainable for mandatory injunction for payment of compensation and rather the suit, if any, should have been filed for recovery. However, it is admitted that Army was mobilized in mid of December 2001, after the attack on the Indian Parliament by Pakistan based militants. However, plea has been taken that Tarlochan Singh himself offered the Army to use a part of the Rice Mill for putting up their tents and equipment etc. and that only a very small part of the Rice Mill was occupied by the Army. Plea has also been taken that Army unit was operating entirely out of tents and did not interfere in any manner in the alleged portion of Saila plant of appellant-plaintiff. Rather the plea has been taken that at that time, no such Saila plant was functioning RSA No.590 of 2011(O&M) -3- and that the same was in a state of neglect. Plea has also been taken that Tarlochan Singh himself issued a certificate that he had permitted the Army to deploy in his rice mill. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court, Ferozepur. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that there was some scheme of Army authorities to pay the rent and, however, the rent was not paid as per the said scheme. However, the said argument is beyond the pleadings. There is no such plea of appellant- plaintiff that there was any scheme of respondents-defendants to pay the rent and that under the said scheme his premises was taken over by the Army. Rather the respondents-defendants have placed on record certificate Ex.D1 issued by Tarlochan Singh himself, which certified that he had himself permitted the Army to be deployed in his rice mill under his jurisdiction. In Ex.D1 he has not made any condition. He has also not mentioned that he would claim rent/compensation for use and occupation of his rice mill by the Army. No such alleged scheme has been placed on record. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said RSA No.590 of 2011(O&M) -4- finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 8.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge [