R.S.A.No.3732 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3732 of 2008 Date of Decision : 21.07.2009 Punjab State Civil Supplies ...Appellants Corp. Ltd. (PUNSUP) and Anr. Versus Amrik Singh ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. J.K.Gurna, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.3,55,131.26 as principal and Rs.1,54,469/- as interest, was dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant had taken over the charge as Inspector Incharge of PUNSUP Centre Bareta on 22.2.1986 from Jangir Singh, Inspector Incharge Bareta and Sukhjit Singh, P.D.C. Double Lock Incharge Bareta. He worked as such w.e.f. 4.4.1985 to 20.9.1985 under the supervision of District Manager, PUNSUP, Bathinda. The defendant was alleged to be responsible for the safe custody of the goods. Subsequently, Jagjiwan Singh, Sub Inspector was posted as Incharge of PUNSUP, Bareta Centre. At the time of delivery of charge, it was found that 1666 bags of wheat were damaged and unfit for human consumption. Such wheat stock was disposed of in public auction R.S.A.No.3732 of 2008 2 in November 1988. The plaintiffs suffered a loss in the sale of said wheat stock, which is sought to be recovered from the defendant in the present suit. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit holding the same to be barred by limitation. It has been found that the shortage of goods and damage has come to the notice of the plaintiffs in the year 1985, whereas the suit has been filed in April 1991 and, therefore, it is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the cause of action would arise to the plaintiffs when the goods were disposed of and not when the same were stacked in the godowns of the plaintiffs. It is a question of fact as to when the cause of action would arise to the plaintiffs. It has been found from a perusal of the record of the Committee for handing over charge to Jagjiwan Singh, Ex.PW2/B, that the shortage of goods and the damage had come to the notice of the plaintiffs in the year 1985. Therefore, the cause of action has been rightly found to have arisen to the plaintiffs in the year 1985, which is distinct from the sale of damaged goods. Finding of fact recorded is sought to be disputed in the present second appeal. It is question of fact as to when cause of action arises to the plaintiffs. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 21.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE