RSA No. 936 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2744-C of 2009 & CM No. 1006-C of 2010 in RSA No. 936 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 09, 2010 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corportion Ltd. . ..... Appellant Versus Naresh Kapil and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Charanjit S.Bakshi, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 2744-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed. The deficiency of Court Fee on the certified copy of the judgment is made good. CM No. 1006-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 326 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 936 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for recovery of short RSA No. 936 of 2009 2 payment for the purchase of paddy in the year 1995. The stand taken by the appellant was that another firm M/s Amloh Rice Mills had embezzled paddy worth Rs. 2 Crores belonging to the appellant and that the said firm was a sister firm of the respondent-firm and consequently-even while admitting that the amount was indeed due - the action in not releasing the amount in dispute was sought to be justified. Both the courts after considering the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the stand of the appellant that the respondent was a sister concern of M/s Amloh Rice Mills was not substantiated on fact, since the commonality of partners alleged by the appellant was only till the year 1989 whereafter the respondent became the sole proprietorship concern of Naresh Kapil who admittedly had no interest in M/s Amloh Rice Mills. Consequently both the Courts below held that the justification sought to be given by the appellant could not hold water and decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the appellants were entitled to adjust the suit amount of the respondents from the account of M/s Sadhu Ram & Sons given the fact that the majority of the partners in both the firms i.e. M/s Sadhu Ram & Sons and M/s Amloh Rice Mills were same or closely related to each other? ii)Whether the suit was time barred and filed beyond the period of limitation of three years? iii)Whether the courts below could grant interest upon interest at the rate of 12% p.a.? As regards question No. (i) learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that this issue of fact was decided by the Courts below either on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. No arguments have been RSA No. 936 of 2009 3 urged on question No. (ii). As regards question No. (iii) the respondent was well within his right to include the entire sum due on the date of filing of the suit as 'principal sum' and thus grant of further interest at the rate of 12% on the 'principal sum adjudged' cannot be held to be illegal. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 09 , 2010 sunita