In second appeal, the High Court examined whether findings of courts below dismissing a recovery suit were perverse under Section 100 CPC. The court held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
Second appeal dismissed for want of substantial question of law.
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.5028 of 2010(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5028 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision: March 01, 2012
Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation.......Appellant
Versus
M/s Mahavir Rice Mills
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
CM No.14814-C of 2010
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 47 days in refiling the appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of Clerk of learned counsel for the appellant.
Delay of 47 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM 14815-C of 2010
RSA No.5028 of 2010(O&M)
2
RSA 5028 of 2010
RSA No.5028 of 2010(O&M)
3
written contract for milling the paddy between the plaintiff and the answering defendant. It was only to oblige Marked that 11935 bags of paddy had been stored in the premises of the defendant-firm. Such stored bags of paddy always remained under the sole control and custody of Markfed and the defendant-firm had no control over the same. 5130 bags were shifted by Markfed to other millers and 1792 bags were sold by Markfed. 4402 bags of paddy were milled by the defendant-firm on the request of plaintiff-Markfed which was equal to 2861.30 quintals of paddy and the same was duly delivered to the plaintiff. Resultantly, no paddy or rice remained with the defendant and in fact, a bill had been submitted by the defendant-firm to the plaintiff to recover an amount of Rs.9010/-. It was further stated that as the defendant-firm had not been allotted the agency for custom milling by Markfed in the year in question, as such, a rent of Rs.4500/- towards storage of paddy was due from Markfed.
RSA No.5028 of 2010(O&M)
4
RSA No.5028 of 2010(O&M) 5
jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court in second appeal will not embark upon an exercise of re-appreciation of evidence. The findings of fact recorded upon due appreciation of evidence would be binding on the High Court.
March 01, 2012 SRM
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the Courts below in dismissing the suit for recovery suffer from misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence.
Whether there exists a substantial question of law arising in the present second appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation
M/s Mahavir Rice Mills
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
