IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1228 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.5.2010 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another. ....... Appellants through Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate. Versus Shri Surjit Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. ....... Respondent through Shri Ravi Kapur, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal. An application (C.M.No.5874-C of 2010) has been moved for condonation of 743 days in its filing. An explanation has been given that the file remained pending with one of the officials of the plaintiffs who has since been proceeded against departmentally. Having regard to this fact, the application is accepted and delay of 743 days is condoned. A suit for recovery of Rs.79570.87 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant-Shri Surjit Singh (since deceased and now R.S.A.No.1228 of 2008 (O&M) -2- .... represented by his legal heirs) who was their employee. It was averred that the defendant was incharge of handling wheat which was procured and was also responsible for shifting the same from one centre to another; that shortage of wheat was noticed by the plaintiffs and he was accordingly proceeded against for having acted negligently and causing loss of Rs.53502.62, but he failed to reimburse the same and hence, the suit. The defendant, upon notice, appeared and filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs were estopped from filing it. It was further pleaded that the stock was shifted on the direction of the superior officials and the distance between Kapurthala and Phagwara is about 45 Kms. and that he was posted at Phagwara centre while the stock was sent to Kapurthala. It was averred that he was not responsible to take care of the stock at Kapurthala centre; that the shortage, if any, was detected by Inspector-Roop Lal in December,1991 at Kapurthala centre of which he was holding independent charge, whereas the charge of Phagwara centre was with the defendant; that every thing was done by the defendant in accordance with the rules and instructions; and that there was a strike in Food Corporation of India from June,1991 to August,1991 and during this period, no special train was moved for lifting the wheat. In nut-shell, the defendant had pleaded that he was not responsible for any loss and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs' cooperation is a body corporate and R.S.A.No.1228 of 2008 (O&M) -3- .... its Secretary -cum- Legal Manager is authorized to file the present suit?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of Rs.79,570.87 being carry over charges?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest, if yes, at what rate?OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 7. Whether the suit is within time?OPP 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 9. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 10. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, Civl Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala dismissed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 29.11.2001. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Kapurthala by judgment & decree dated 1.10.2005. R.S.A.No.1228 of 2008 (O&M) -4- .... Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the legal representatives of the defendant contended that no infirmity or illegality can be said to have been committed by the Courts while dismissing the suit and the appeal of the appellants. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments which shows that the appellants themselves had exonerated the defendant. Exhibit PW4/57 clearly revealed that they had given a clean chit to the defendant. According to this letter, it was not the fault of the defendant that the wheat stocks of the crop years of 1990-91 and 1991-92 could not be loaded in the wheat specials of June and August,1992. The innocence of the defendant is also established from a copy of regular department enquiry report, Exhibit DW4/2. Apparently some loss had been caused to the appellants on account of tardy movement of the grains. But, in the absence of any conclusive evidence to show that the defendant was responsible for the same, he could not have been burdened with the liability for it. As mentioned above, the appellants themselves have exonerated the defendant. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the pure findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Moreover, no substantial question has been shown to have arisen for consideration of this Court. R.S.A.No.1228 of 2008 (O&M) -5- .... Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed being without any merit. All pending civil miscellaneous applications are also dismissed in view of the above. May 19,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge