In this second appeal, the appellant challenged the lower courts' decree for recovery of money for paddy sold through their agency. The Court held that the findings were not perverse given documentary evidence and witness testimony, dismissing the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; lower court decree upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.4470 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.4470 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.10.2010
M/s Preet Trading Company and others
...Appellants
vs
Kewal Singh and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Present: Ms.Amandeep Soni,Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Atul Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.
This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery was decreed.
The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.35298/- against the appellant on the ground that he sold his paddy crop on 15.10.2001 and 20.10.2001 through the commission agency of appellants-firm, and the amount as claimed was not paid and was kept by the appellants and, therefore, he was entitled to recover the same along with interest.
In the written statement, the appellants accepted that the partnership concern was carrying on the work of commission agent. However, it was claimed that the previous firm was dissolved on 31.3.1999 and another partnership deed dated 1.4.1999 comprising of Hardial Singh,
RSA No.4470 of 2009
2
Paramjit Singh and Harbhajan Kaur as partners was enforced. However, it was denied that plaintiff-respondent sold any crops to them. Other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed.
After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffrespondent for a sum ofRs.24650/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cause of action till the realization of the decretal money. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the defendant-appellant before the first Appellate Court. However, the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.8.2009.
Still not satisfied the defendant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below on the ground that the Courts below have failed to consider the material evidence on record which fully proves that the plaintiff-respondent had sold his paddy crop to M/s Harbans Singh and sons Commission Agents, Head Office, Sultanpur Lodhi, and not to the appellant firm and thus the judgment and decrees of the courts below are liable to be set aside. Elaborating his argument further, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the statements of plaintiff-respondent and other witnesses to show the contradictions/discrepancies in the oral testimony in support of his arguments.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees .
On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has sought to raise the following substantial question of law
RSA No.4470 of 2009
3
arising out of this appeal for consideration of this Court:-
“Whether the findings of the Courts below are perverse ?”
In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that he had sold the paddy crops through the firm of defendant whereas the appellant has denied that respondent sold any paddy through them. It may be noticed that while decreeing the suit, the trial Court has relied upon receipts Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 which have been issued by the appellantfirm. A perusal of these receipts reveals that appellant had issued these receipts admitting the fact that plaintiff had sold paddy as stated in the plaint. The trial Court also noticed that the plaintiff had examined PW3 Sukhdayal Singh Accountant of the appellant firm who had categorically stated that Kewal Singh respondent used to sell his crop at the appellant's firm and he had issued slips/receipts Exs.P3 and P4 to the plaintiffrespondent being Accountant of the firm. Simply because plaintiffrespondent had also sold some more paddy through commission agency, respondent will not establish itself that plaintiff-respondent had not sold the paddy through the appellant. In any case, both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellants were liable to make payment of crop sold by the plaintiffrespondent through their commission agency. Keeping in view the evidence on record and the fact that the appellants have not produced their accounts books in support of their case which was the best evidence to prove their case it cannot be said that findings recorded by the courts below are perverse warranting interference of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
RSA No.4470 of 2009
4
No substantial question of law arises.
No merit. Dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge
October 6, 2010 rk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the findings of the Courts below regarding the sale of paddy through the commission agency are perverse warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Preet Trading Company
Kewal Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
