Madhya Pradesh High Court
Principal , Govt. Maharaja Autonomous vs Munnalal Tamrakar on 29 February, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
FIRST APPEAL No. 132 of 2001
BETWEEN:-
1. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT
MAHARAJA, AUTONOMOUS
COLLEGE, DISTRICT CHATTAPUR,
M.P.
2. SECRETRARY HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MP,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOAP, M.P.
3. REGIONAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT. GOVT.
OF MP, REWA DIVISION, KOTHI
COMPOUND, REWA, MP
4. COLLECTOR, REWA MP
5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, HIGHER
EDUCAITON DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF
M.P., SATPUDA BHAWAN, BHOPAL, MP
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI A.S. BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MUNNALAL TAMRAKAR, SON OF LATE
SHRI AKTILAL TAMRAKAR, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, PROP. OF M.S. ADARSH
FURNITURES, TAMRI R.O OF NEAR
GOVERDHAN TALKIES, CHHATARPUR
2. MANAGER, MP. LAGHU, UDYOG NIGAM
LTD. NEW MARKET, T.T. NAGAR,
BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE )
RESERVED ON : 29.01.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.02.2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 13-03-2024
22:09:02
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgement, coming on
for pronoucement this day, the Court passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This first appeal has been filed under Section 96 of CPC by the appellants
against judgement dated 06.12.2000 passed by First Additional District Judge,
Chhatarpur, in Civil Suit No. 3-B/1998 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff
Munnalal Tamrakar has been decreed.
2. Plaint averments in brief are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.50,000/- on the ground that plaintiff has supplied furniture to defendant no.1 but
defendants did not pay bills relating to supply of furniture of plaintiff despite
service of notice.
3. In written statement filed by the defendants, it is pleaded that no furniture
has been received by defendant No.1 and there is no entry with respect to supply of
any furniture in the record of defendant No.1. Therefore, defendants are not liable
to pay amount as mentioned in the bills. Further, present suit is time barred also.
Hence, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. Learned trial Court vide judgement dated 06.12.2000 passed in RCS
No.3B/1998 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, after referring to pleadings of plaintiff as
well as evidence on record, submits that plaintiff has failed to prove that he has
supplied furniture to defendant no.1. Further, there is non joinder of party as
Principal of Maharaja Autonomous College has not been made party. Further, suit
is barred by limitation. On above grounds, it is urged that the appeal filed by the
appellants be allowed and suit be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record of the
case.
7. Perusal of plaint averments and written statement filed by the defendants as
well as Ex.P/5 and P/6 reveals that basis of present suit is that plaintiff supplied
furniture to defendant No.1 and principal of concerned college/ educational
institution has been joined as defendant No.1. Hence, it cannot be said that there is
non-joinder of party.
8. As per Ex.P/3, furniture was supplied to Principal, Govt. Degree College,
and it has been received by Principal of above degree college. Defendants have not
examined Dr. Pramod Deshmukh, who was the principal of College, at the time of
supply of furniture and he might have deposed that no furniture was supplied as
per receipt Ex.P/3. Further, perusal of deposition of defendant witnesses clearly
reveals that they have admitted signature of Dr. Pramod Deshmukh, Principal of
College at the relevant point of time, on Ex.P/3, P/4, P/5, P/6, P/7 and P/16.
9. Defendants have filed Ex.D/1 i.e. Stock Register, in this Court's considered
opinion, on the basis of Ex.D/1, it cannot be said that furniture was not received.
Further, if Ex.P/3 was fake and forged or bogus, then, defendants should have
initiated criminal action/proceedings against plaintiff but no such action has been
initiated by the defendants.
10. Therefore, in view of above, in this Court's considered opinion, from
evidence on record, it is clearly established that plaintiff supplied furniture to
defendant No.1 vide Ex.P/1, P/2 and P/3 and payment of above furniture has not
been made to plaintiff till today.
11. So far as limitation is concerned, defendants have admitted to have received
notice dated 16.08.94 & 29.05.1996 in the written statement. Present suit has been
filed on 27.7.1998. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot
be said that suit was barred by limitation.
12. Hence, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras, learned trial Court has not
committed any illegality in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and no grounds
are made out for warranting interference in the same.
13. Hence, appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
sh
