R.S.A.No. 1229 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1229 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 29.3.2011 M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills ......Appellant Versus M/s Parmod Kumar Mittal .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ` 6,34,301.52. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff firm was doing the business of commission agency at Grain Market, Ferozepur Cantt. The defendants were running rice mill under the name and style of M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills, Moga Road, Ferozepur Cantt. The parties had dealings with each other qua purchase of paddy. The defendants were liable to pay the amount in question. Defendants in their written statement admitted that they had business dealings with the plaintiff. It was averred that the R.S.A.No. 1229 of 2010(O&M) 2 accounts had already been cleared by the defendants-Mill. Nothing remained due towards the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants along with interest on account of sale price of paddy purchased by the defendants? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPP 3. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2007. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2008 passed by the District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the parties had business dealings with each other. The appellant-Mill used to purchase paddy from the plaintiff. It was alleged by the plaintiff that during the year 2000-01, the defendant-mill had purchased paddy on 14.9.2000, 16.9.2000, 17.9.2000 and 19.9.2000. The alleged purchase made by the defendant from the plaintiff on 19.9.2000 was denied by the defendant. The payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff are also not in dispute. Thus, the controversy that remains between the R.S.A.No. 1229 of 2010(O&M) 3 parties is qua the payment with regard to the purchase of paddy by the defendant on 19.9.2000. In this regard, the plaintiff proved on record Ex.P-4. As per the said document, paddy weighing 1339 quintals had been purchased by the defendant. None of the entries qua purchase are signed by the defendant but the purchase by the defendant on 14.9.2000, 16.9.2000 and 17.9.2000 has been admitted by the defendant. In these circumstances, merely because the purchase made by the defendant on 19.9.2000 is not signed by the defendant would not adversely effect the case of the plaintiff. Apparently, there was no practice between the parties to get the signatures of the concerned party at the time of purchase. The plaintiff also proved on record a copy of the ledger Ex.P-19 qua the said purchase dated 19.9.2000. It has been noticed by the learned District Judge that as per Ex.P-Z, income tax return of the defendant filed in a suit titled M/s Mittal Traders vs. M/s Guru Nanak Rice Mills, an amount of ` 10,34,301.52 was shown to be outstanding against the plaintiff. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the amount in question was outstanding against the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 29, 2011 anita