Regular Second Appeal No. 582 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 582 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 4.2.2009 *** The Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society, Grain Market, Dharamkot. .. Appellant VS. M/s Jagan Nath & Company & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a suit for recovery got instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, the present regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant No.1, wherein a challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. It emerges out from the records that the plaintiff firm- respondent No.1, through its partner, filed a suit against the appellant and respondents No.2 and 3 and sought recovery of Rs.42,513.37 paise as principal amount and Rs.59,786/- as interest accrued thereupon with the averment that respondents No.2 and 3, through the appellant, a Commission Agent, purchased paddy worth Rs.29,99,482.57 vide different bills between September 1993 and October 1993, but the plaintiff firm was paid less amount of Rs.42,513.37 by the appellant and hence recovery of the said amount was sought. The stand of the defendants was on denial. According to them, the suit is not only bad for want of notice under Section 79 of the Punjab State Cooperative Societies Act 1961 (for short, the Act), but the Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 582 of 2009 2 Court has no jurisdiction in the matter in the light of provisions contained in Section 82 of the said Act. It was also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. Their further case was that defendant No.3 i.e. MARKFED, Ferozepur never made any purchases from the plaintiff, through defendant No.1 and it was in fact MARKFED Gurdaspur which purchased the paddy from plaintiff through defendant No.1 and since MARKFED Gurdaspur was not made party, therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. After contest, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by both the Courts below by holding the appellant liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,02,300/- as principal amount and interest thereupon along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% and 6% per annum respectively. Hence, this regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. It is apparent from the perusal of the judgments of the Courts below that there is no dispute to the fact that the appellant made purchases of paddy for the MARKFED from the plaintiff firm-respondent No.1 vide bills Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, as reflected in the ledgers duly produced and proved on record. Even DW1 Mahender Singh, working as Accountant with the appellant Society admitted the claim of the plaintiff, when confronted with the bills/ ledger. Although it has been pleaded that the said amount was deducted on account of driage of paddy, but no contract between the parties to that effect was produced. Even an adverse inference was drawn against respondents No.2 and 3, who failed to step into the witness-box. This rightly led the Courts below to conclude that an amount of Rs. 42,513.37 is outstanding towards the appellant-defendant No.1 Society through whom the purchases were made by MARKFED from the plaintiff firm and this amount has been deducted without any sufficient reason. It also goes undisputed on record that the plaintiff-firm had no direct dealings with the MARKFED and it is the appellant Society, who worked as middleman in the entire transaction. The amount was first paid to the appellant by the MARKFED and after deducting its commission, the appellant Society used to make the payment to the seller firm. The impugned bills Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were also issued as “C/O Society”, who lateron issued gate passes and Regular Second Appeal No. 582 of 2009 3 delivered the paddy to MARKFED. Thus, it is none of the business of the plaintiff firm to ascertain to whom the said paddy was delivered by the appellant Society either to MARKFED Gurdaspur or Ferozepur. However, the plaintiff not only impleaded MARKFED Gurdaspur but also defendant No.2, its registered office, controlling and supervising all its Branches throughout the State of Punjab. The issuance of legal notice to the appellant and receipt thereof is not in dispute, as admitted by DW1 Mohinder Singh. The last payment was made to the plaintiff vide cheque dated 4.9.1995, received by him on 5.9.1995 and the suit was filed on 29.8.1998, as emerges out from the judgment, to say, that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The cumulative effect of all this is that the Courts below rightly held that neither the MARKFED Gurdaspur is the necessary party in the suit, which has been filed within limitation nor the suit is bad for compliance of any mandatory provisions of Act ibid. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter, it has rightly been concluded that since primarily the dispute is between the plaintiff firm and defendant No.1, a commission agent, regarding less payment, which in no way touches the constitution, management and business of the Cooperative Society, therefore, the Civil Court has every jurisdiction in the matter and cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff to file the instant suit. Nothing has been shown to deviate from the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 4,2009 Jiten