RSA No.1133 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1133 of 2008 Date of Decision:30.01.2009 Kirpal Singh ....appellant Versus State of Punjab & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.G.C.Gupta,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,04,760/-(Rs.1,50,760/- as principal amount + Rs.54,000/- interest at the rate of 12% per annum) has been dismissed with costs. As per the averments made in the suit, the plaintiff-appellant who was working as Agriculture Inspector in the office of Chief Agriculture Officer, Patiala retired on 30.04.1997. During his tenure, the Punjab Government made many schemes for development of agriculture in Punjab and provided many facilities to the farmers. Under the welfare scheme of the farmers the Punjab Government decided to provide insecticide at subsidiary prices from the period 06.08.1992 to 29.09.1992 and supplied insecticide for sales to the farmers on subsidiary basis. The appellant sold some quantity of the insecticides with the help of other employees of the Department and desposited the cost of insecticide. The allegation of the plaintiff is that he was forced by the defendants to deposit more amount which he deposited under coercion. Hence this suit for recovery. The RSA No.1133 of 2008 2 defendants contested the suit by taking various legal objections and on merits denied the averments made in the plaint. The Courts below dismissed the suit of the appellant. The trial Court on considering the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff- appellant with costs. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20.08.2007. While dismissing the appeal the Lower Appellate Court observed as under: “After hearing the rival contentions of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and learned Government Pleader for the respondents/defendants, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has no force. In his statement dated 27.01.1994 Ex.D1, the appellant/plaintiff has admitted the issuance of insecticide and he also admitted that he made the statement and it was signed by him. The appellant/plaintiff has not brought any evidence to show from which he deposited the excess amount of Rs. 150760/- with the respondents/defendants. The exact amount payable by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondents/ defendants came to the notice on 17.07.1995, whereas Ram Dass submitted the enquiry report on 05.06.1994 observing that excess amount of Rs. 58864/- was deposited by the appellant/plaintiff. After that second enquiry was ordered, but the RSA No.1133 of 2008 3 appellant/plaintiff did not participate in the enquiry inspite of asking to him to join the same. The period regarding the alleged recovery is from 07.09.1992 to 29.09.1992, but the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present suit on 28.10.1998 which is barred by limitation. Moreover, the perusal of the copy of writ petition shows that the writ petition filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed on merits by the Hon'ble High Court on 14.09.1996 and in the writ petition, this very relief was claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. So, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by the principle of resjudicata. So, I am of the view that the lower Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. There is no ground to interfere in the judgment and decree under appeal. The findings given by the lower Court on all the issues are affirmed. The appeal of the appellant/plaintiff is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. I find no merit in this appeal. The appellant has admitted the issuance of insecticide. No evidence has been brought on record by the appellant to show that he deposited excess amount with the respondent. The exact amount payable by the appellant to the respondents came to the notice on 17.07.1995 whereupon an enquiry was ordered but the appellant did not participate in the aforesaid enquiry. The period regarding the alleged recovery is from RSA No.1133 of 2008 4 07.09.1992 to 29.09.1992 whereas the present suit was filed on 28.10.1998 which is clearly time barred. Moreover, the appellant had filed a writ petition on the same cause of action which was dismissed on 14.08.1996. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to controvert these facts as noticed by the Courts below. Thus, no fault can be found with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 30.01.2009 neenu