R.S.A.No. 2019 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2019 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2011 The Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mill Limited ......Appellant Versus Century Instruments Pvt. Ltd. .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery alleging therein that the defendant had purchased certain material/ instruments mentioned in the invoices and the same were delivered at the address of the defendant and a demonstration was held qua the same to the entire satisfaction of the defendant by the plaintiff- company. No complaint was received qua the working of the instruments from the defendant. The defendant, however, failed to make the payment of ` 19,324/- to the plaintiff. Defendant, in its written statement, admitted that an order had been placed with the plaintiff-company by the defendant for R.S.A.No. 2019 of 2011 (O&M) 2 purchase of Data Logger along with printer. A condition was imposed that in case of break down of the equipment, the plaintiff would attend to the same within 24 hours. The plaintiff had failed to provide the requisite service. The Data Logger carried a guarantee of 12 months and the same had not been used even for one crushing season. The Data Logger was commissioned on 27.2.1999. Information was sent to the plaintiff qua non functioning of the Data Logger and the same was attended by the Engineer of the plaintiff- firm on 12.3.1999. Again a letter was written to the plaintiff regarding the non functioning of the Data Logger and the representative of the firm reached on 30.12.1999 and rectified the defect. The system worked for 20 days satisfactorily but thereafter, again a fault developed and despite numerous complaints, the plaintiff-firm failed to attend to the equipment and the same was lying un-utilised. The balance payment was not made as the system had not worked satisfactorily even for one complete crushing season as per the guarantee clause of purchase order. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of ` 46,850/- with interest at the rate of 18% pendente lite from the date of filing suit till the date of decree and future interest till realisation? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 3. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the R.S.A.No. 2019 of 2011 (O&M) 3 present suit ? OPD 5. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.6.2005. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.9.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. 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 goods worth ` 1,02,417/- had been supplied by the plaintiff-company to the defendant on various dates. The defendant had withheld balance payment of ` 19,324/- qua Data Logger printer on the ground that the same was not running satisfactorily. Admittedly, the equipment was rectified by the company on 12.3.1999 and 30.12.1999 after it was installed in the premises of the defendant on 12.1.1999. The equipment was supplied to the defendant on 22.12.1998. The Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have held that the equipment had been duly rectified and hence, the defendant was liable to make the balance payment to the plaintiff. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in appeal. The purchase order of the goods in question was accepted by the plaintiff at Chandigarh and goods were supplied to the defendant from Chandigarh. The plaintiff-company is having its office at Chandigarh. Since part of the cause of action had arisen at R.S.A.No. 2019 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Chandigarh, the Courts below rightly held that the suit could be filed by the plaintiff in the Court at Chandigarh. 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 May 11, 2011 anita