IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No. 10144-C of 2008 and RSA No. 3408 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.3.2009 Arihant Metals and others … Appellants. Versus Chaggar Engineering Works … Respondents Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the applicants-appellants. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM No. 10144-C of 2008: For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 157 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 3408 of 2008: The present regular second appeal is directed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration has been decreed. Plaintiff in his suit pleaded that it deals in manufacturing of auto parts. Since it had developed business relations with defendant No.1, a partnership firm of defendants 2 and 3, it supplied auto parts to them through various bills. Defendants made part payments leaving a balance of Rs.3,86,156.90P. Due to non-payment of the entire bills, the present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff. Upon notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement took up the stand that the goods so supplied by the plaintiff were defective and for that, letters dated 1.4.2001 and 22.8.2001 were written and they also sent debit note dated 22.8.2001 for Rs.4,50,000/- to the plaintiff due to goods rejected by the Overseas buyers. Besides this, an objection was also taken with regard to suit being barred by time. Plaintiff, however, did not file any replication to the written statement. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,86,156.90P along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the RSA No. 3408 of 2008 -2- principal amount, i.e. Rs.3,86,156.90P with effect from 1.3.2002 till filing of the suit and thereafter till realization. Aggrieved therefrom, defendants preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendants. The Courts below while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff have concurrently found that there were business dealings between the plaintiff and the defendants. The goods in question were supplied to the defendants vide Exhibits P-3 to P-9, which also stands admitted by defendants’ own witness, namely, DW-1 Parmod Kumar in his examination-in-chief. The plea of the defendants that the goods so supplied by the plaintiff were of sub-standard quality and as such, were rejected by their foreign buyers, has been negatived by the Courts below while holding that DW-1 Parmod Kumar in his cross- examination admitted that the goods qua which the suit had been filed, is not lying with the defendants, which were exported to different parties and were still lying with the said parties. This witness further admitted that the defendants never received back the said exported goods from the foreign buyers. It has been thus, held that there is no basis to claim that the goods were of sub-standard quality and were rejected by the buyers. The said evidence of DW-1 Parmod Kumar clinches the entire issue. Resultantly, the plaintiff, and rightly so, has been held to the relief prayed for, as discussed above. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. March 27, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE