RSA No.3407 of 2008(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3407 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2009 M/s Ambari Ram Bal Krishan ...Appellant VERSUS Sadhu Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the recovery suit of the respondent. The following substantial questions of law have been proposed:- 1. “Whether the judgment passed by the Hon'ble First Appellate Court can be said to be in conformity with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC? 2. Whether it was imperative on the first appellate court to deal with the grounds of appeal taken for it by the appellant-defendant before disposing of the appeal by a non-speaking judgment and giving a general agreement only with the findings of the learned Lower Court? RSA No.3407 of 2008(O&M) -2- 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case when Dalbara Singh (lawful attorney of plaintiff Sadhu Singh) has not been examined by Sadhu Singh, the case set up by Sadhu Singh can be accepted, more so keeping in view the un-controverted evidence of the defence witnesses in view of Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act? 4. Whether it was imperative upon Sadhu Singh to produce Dalbara Singh to establish the fact that the produce of crop was sold through Dalbara Singh, more so particularly when there was no pleading on that account in the entire plaint? 5. Whether in view of AIR 1985 SC 736 it was imperative upon the learned First Appellate Court to give its judgment on all the issues? 6. Whether despite the fact that the produce of the crops was sold through DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW5, the payment received by them, still it can be said that they were not the authorized representatives of the plaintiff, ignoring the concept of implied authority?” It is seen that questions No.1, 2 and 5 are basically the same question stated in different forms. As regards questions No.3, 4 and 6, it would be necessary to set out the admitted facts and evidence emerging from this appeal. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for recovery of money of the crops which RSA No.3407 of 2008(O&M) -3- were sold through the appellant. The case of the appellant is that they had paid the money to his relatives particularly to his father-in-law and four brothers-in-law. It is, however, not disputed that there was no authority issued by the plaintiff-respondent in favour of these persons. In these circumstances, questions No.3, 4 and 6 do not arise. As regards questions No.1, 2 and 5, suffice it to say that in view of narrow controversy between the parties no fault can be found in the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court and consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case since has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 07, 2009 JUDGE ashish