HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No.: 323 of 1996. Reserved on: 25.4.2008. Decided on: 12.5.2008. Haryana Seed Development Corporation Ltd. & others ………Appellants. Versus Gian Chand ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellants: Mr. Neeraj Gupta and Ms.Charu Gupta, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the court of learned Additional District Judge, Solan, dated 15.6.1996, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Kandaghat, dated 30.12.1994, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs.13,380/- alongwith costs and interest. ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount before the learned trial Court alleging that he had supplied seed of cauliflower worth Rs.9840/- to the defendants/appellants since the plaintiff was a grower of cauliflower seed and vegetables and the defendant-Corporation had persuaded him to grow cauliflower seed, which was to be purchased by the defendants from the plaintiff. An inspection of the seed was conducted and after due inspection of the sample for the third time, the same was found conforming to the standards but the payment was withheld by the defendants that the seed did not conform to the prescribed standards hence the suit filed for the recovery of the amount. Defendants took up plea that according to the provisions of the Act, the seed, so accepted, was accepted by the defendants subject to its conforming to the minimum standards and since the sample failed, the plaintiff was advised to lift the seed and as such the defendants are not liable for payment. The suit was tried by the learned trial Court which decreed the suit holding that the sample after re-gradation conformed to the standards and as such the plaintiff was entitled to the amount as price of the seed supplied to the defendants, which findings were affirmed on appeal. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were that there was no specific evidence on record to show that the sample had conformed to the standards and since it was not in accordance with the standards prescribed, the defendants were not liable to make payment. It was submitted that there can be reappraisal of the evidence once both the courts below have come to a wrong conclusion. - 3 - To substantiate his point, the learned counsel for the appellants had relied upon the decision of the apex court in Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545. It was held by their Lordships that it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being to strike the judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice and the impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in life of any lis. Their Lordships had also clarified the need for drawing of distinction with mere question of law or a substantial question of fact. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that since there are concurrent findings of fact and both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the sample had conformed to the standard at the time of third analysis after re-gradation, therefore, there cannot be any reappraisal of evidence even if some erroneous conclusions, for arguments sake, may have been drawn by the learned trial Court in coming to its findings. On a perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate their case. The first letter, dated 25.11.1986, Ext.PW-5/A, is that the sample had not conformed to the standard. The second letter is dated 8.6.1987 Ext.PW-5/B vide which third sample had been sent for analysis. Then there is a letter Ext.PW-5/C that the said sample had failed. But the copies of the report proved on record are Ext.PW-5/F and Ext.DW-1/B and Ext.DW-1/C, which are dated 3.7.1987 and - 4 - 25.8.1987. However, all these reports refer to the percentage of purity, moisture percentage etc. but no final conclusions have been mentioned in these reports though headings under which it could be rejected have been clearly specified, but the final report does not show under which head this was accepted or rejected by the Corporation. The learned trial Court had referred to the statements of the parties and had also discussed oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and had concluded that after re-gradation, the sample was found conforming to the standard prescribed since it satisfied the requirement of law. There cannot be reappraisal of oral as well as documentary evidence again to conclude that these findings of fact are based upon wrong interpretation of the evidence by both the courts below. They have given a finding of fact that the sample conformed to the standard after re-gradation and there cannot be reappraisal of evidence for the third time by this court sitting in appeal until and unless it was shown that the conclusions drawn are so perverse that no prudent man would come to those conclusions at the time of appreciating the evidence. The conclusions drawn may not be fully correct or partially erroneous but that does not call for reappraisal of evidence until and unless the court holds that these conclusions were perverse, which is not so in the present case and, therefore, I am of the opinion that there cannot be reappraisal of the evidence. The substantial questions of law framed were mainly in regard to the question if there could be sale of seed which was found to be substandard in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Regulations, and that the courts below have misconstrued the provisions of the Seeds Act. - 5 - It is true that the sample had to conform to the standard but no specific document has been referred to by the defendants to show that on third analysis still it was found to be below standard since the final reports mentioned above are silent in this regard and taking an overall view of the evidence, both the courts below have concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount, which findings of fact do not call for an interference by this Court and as such are upheld. There is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants, which is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. May 12, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.