RSA No. 1608 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1608 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.11.2011 Dyal Singh ........ Appellant Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. And another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Nayar, Advocate for the appellant. JORA SINGH, J. Dyal Singh, preferred this Regular Second Appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2008, passed by the learned District Judge, Amritsar whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.3.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, was dismissed Along with the appeal, CM No. 4801-C of 2010, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal was also filed. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Main allegation of the appellant is that he is a Commission RSA No. 1608 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Agent and is carrying on business as Commission Agent at Khalra Mandi, Khalra, District Amritsar. Respondent No. 1 through respondent No.2 had purchased paddy in the year 2004-05 from the appellant and the purchases were made on 26.9.2004, 28.9.2001 and 5.10.2004. Total 6000 kattas each weighing 35 kg of paddy were purchased and the purchased goods were to be lifted by the respondents within 24 hours. Paddy was purchased vide bills No. 20 dated 28.9.2004, 21 dated 30.9.2004 and 22 dated 5.10.2004. After purchase, paddy was stored in front of the shop of the appellant and was lifted on 3.11.2004, 4.11.2004 and 14.11.2004. While lifting the purchased paddy, paddy was got weighed from the weighing scale and there was no shortage but later on respondents calculated the shortage to the tune of ` 52,609/-. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis- joinder of the parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court? OPD 5. Relief.” After evidence led by both the parties, suit for recovery filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned trial Court and judgment RSA No. 1608 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of the trial was upheld by the learned Ist Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that paddy was purchased by the respondents from the appellant. Purchased paddy was to be lifted by the respondents within 24 hours but due to the negligence of the respondents paddy was not lifted within 24 hours. Shortage was due to the negligence of the respondents. Purchase of paddy by the respondents was clear as per bills and gate passes. Admittedly, appellant was a Commission Agent and was carrying on business in the Grain Market, Khalra. In the year 2004-05, paddy was purchased by the respondents vide bills Ex. P-1 to P-3 and the purchased paddy was got weighed with the weighing scale of Dharam Kanta but no document on the file that paddy purchased was weighed on the same date. Appellant has admitted that there was no weighing machine in the Grain Market but as per documentary evidence on file shortage was found at the time of weighment of paddy bags. Appellant was to show that on the date of purchase, there was no shortage and the same was due to the negligence of the respondents because paddy was not lifted within time i.e. due to late lifting of the paddy by the respondents. Appellant has admitted his signatures on Ex. D-1 to D-3 and as per Ex. D-1 to D-3 payment by the purchaser was to be made according to the bills. Appellant has also admitted the correctness of weighment at the weigh bridge vide Ex. D-14 to D-23 and issuance of gate passes without weighment of the goods. Ex. D-14 to Ex. D23 are the slips issued by Doaba Computer Dharam Kanta and Jagjit Computer Dharam Kanta. When the paddy was not weighed at the time of sale to the respondents due to non-availability of weighing bridge and the weighment was outside the market then as per certificate RSA No. 1608 of 2010 (O&M) -4- issued at the time of weighment by the owner of the weighing bridge then payment is to be made as per certificate when no agreement amongst the parties that appellant will not be responsible for shortage of paddy due to its dryness. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the Courts' below. No substantial question of law is involved. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, no scope for interference. For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed. November 2, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE