R.S.A. No. 30 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 30 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.01.2010 Gurdev Kaur and others ....Appellants versus M/s Sat Pal Raj Pal, Raman, and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 130-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, CM is allowed and the delay of 29 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 30 of 2010 and CMs No. 131-132-C of 2010 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2009 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of amount outstanding against the deceased-Jarnail Singh, has been ordered to be decreed. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on the pleading, that late Sh. Jarnail Singh used to purchase pesticides from the respondent/plaintiff, and an amount of Rs.22,125/- (Rupees twenty two thousand one hundred and twenty five only) was due against Jarnail Singh. After the death of Jarnail Singh, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the appellants on the pleadings, that the estate R.S.A. No. 30 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of late Sh. Jarnail Singh was inherited by the appellants and, therefore, they are liable to pay the amount due from Jarnail Singh out of the estate inherited by the appellants. The appellant/defendants contested the suit by denying the averments made in the plaint and also by taking a specific stand, that whatever amount was due stood paid, and nothing was outstanding against late Sh. Jarnail Singh. Both the learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact holding, that the plaintiff was able to prove, that amount was due from late Sh. Jarnail Singh. The findings have been recorded in view of the stand taken by the appellants in the written statement. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether on non-production of license under the Pesticide and Insecticide Act by the respondent, adverse inference is to be drawn against him? 2. Whether the amount of those bills is recoverable from the appellants which do not bear signatures of Jarnail Singh? 3. Whether the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence led by the appellants? 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff was within limitation?” In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellants contends, that as the plaintiff has failed to produce the lincense under the Pesticide and Insecticide Act, therefore, R.S.A. No. 30 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the transaction being illegal, no amount could be claimed from the appellants, under the illegal transactions of late Jarnail Singh and that of respondent/plaintiff. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be rejected for more than one reasons. Firstly, that no such plea was taken before the learned Courts below, nor any issue was framed by the learned Courts, therefore, it is not open to the appellants at this stage to raise this plea for the first time. Secondly, for the reason, that if the deceased-Jarnail Singh had taken the pesticides, he cannot deny the liability to pay for the purchase merely for want of license, as the plaintiff had no opportunity to produce the license for want of issue in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellants on substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3 contends, that the findings of the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading and misinterpretation of evidence. This argument is based on the ground, that once the appellants had denied the dealing of late Sh. Jarnail Singh with the plaintiff, it was for the plaintiff to prove the signatures of late Sh. Jarnail Singh on the running accounts maintained by the plaintiff, and also on the bills by examining hand-writing expert, burden thereof could not be put on the defendants. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the bills, which were produced, did not bear the signatures of late Sh. Jarnail Singh. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants also cannot be accepted, as the evidence led has been appreciated in view of the defence taken by the defendant/appellants, wherein the factum of R.S.A. No. 30 of 2010 (O&M) -4- transaction was admitted by taking a positive plea that the amount, which was due for purchase of pesticides, stood already paid and nothing was outstanding. It cannot, therefore, be said that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence. No fault can be found with the decree which is based on running accounts, maintained by the firm with late Sh. Jarnail Singh. No arguments were raised, as to how the suit was time barred. The substantial questions of law raised, therefore, are answered against the defendant/appellants. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 11, 2009 R.S.