Punjab State Cooperative Supply & ... vs M/S Bajaj Rice Mills & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3526 P&H

                            RSA No.4511 of 2017                  -1-                    2023:PHHC:047814

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                            247                                          RSA No.4511 of 2017 (O&M)
                                                                         Reserved on : 13.03.2023
                                                                         Date of Decision : 11.04.2023


                            The Punjab State Co-operative and Marketing Federation Ltd. ...Appellant

                                                               Versus

                            M/s Bajaj Rice Mills & Anr.                                  .....Respondents


                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN


                            Present:    Mr. Naresh Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                                                                 -.-

                            ALKA SARIN, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant

against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below vide

judgments and decrees dated 30.05.2015 and 15.07.2016 whereby its suit for

recovery has been dismissed.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.62,26,702/- from the defendant-

respondents along with interest on the cost of rice and bardana from the

year 1994-95 onwards till its payment. As per the plaintiff-appellant, vide

letter dated 27.09.1994 it allotted the defendant-respondent rice mill to

Markfed for custom milling of paddy and an agreement was also executed

between the parties. The defendant-respondent rice mill was required to

deliver stocks of rice till 28.02.1995 however it did not adhere to the

schedule and therefore the defendant-respondents are liable to pay

compensation as enumerated in different clause of the agreement along with JITENDER KUMAR 2023.04.11 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             RSA No.4511 of 2017                    -2-                    2023:PHHC:047814

interest. Upon notice, the defendant-respondents put in appearance and filed

written statement taking preliminary objection regarding the suit being

beyond limitation and the suit not having been filed through an authorized

person with a resolution of the board of directors. On merits it was

submitted that during 1994-95 there was bumper heavy crop and there was

no storage space with the Government as well as procuring agencies

including the plaintiff-appellant and the paddy was stored in the mill

premises under the custody and control of the officials of plaintiff. The

miller was supposed to deliver the advance rice in the shape of two wagons

and only thereafter the equivalent paddy was to be released out of the stored

paddy. However, due to poor quality of paddy, the milled rice was not

within the specifications. The Government purchased the paddy in that year

from the farmers at the rate of Rs.360/- per quintal. The loss is only on

account of sale of paddy due to its poor quality and not on account of

breach of any terms between the parties. The plaintiff-appellant filed a

replication reiterating the contents of the plaint. On the basis of the

pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest if so at

what rate ? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within

limitation ? OPP

4. Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is not filed

through the authorized person ? OPD

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.04.11 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh RSA No.4511 of 2017 -3- 2023:PHHC:047814

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped with its own act

and conduct ? OPD

6. Relief.

Vide judgement and decree dated 30.05.2015 the Trial Court

dismissed the suit. The Trial Court inter-alia held the suit being filed beyond

limitation, it having been filed by an unauthorized person and the plaintiff-

appellant not being entitled to recover the amount from the defendant-

respondents. The plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal against the decision of

the Trial Court however the same was dismissed by the First Appellate

Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.07.2016. Though the First

Appellate Court decided the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiff-

appellant, the findings of the Trial Court on the other issues were affirmed

and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has urged that the

Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit for recovery and that there

has been mis-reading of the evidence led by the plaintiff-appellant. It is

submitted that the plaintiff-appellant deserved to be compensated for the loss

suffered by it.

Heard.

The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery was based

upon an order dated 28.03.2011 passed by its Managing Director. However,

neither was the said order proved in original nor any application was moved

by the plaintiff-appellant to prove the same by way of secondary evidence.

Once, the plaintiff-appellant failed to lay the foundation of its suit the Courts

below were justified in dismissing the same. Further, nothing has been

pointed out from the record to justify as to how the defendant-respondents JITENDER KUMAR 2023.04.11 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             RSA No.4511 of 2017                   -4-                   2023:PHHC:047814

were liable for the alleged loss suffered by the plaintiff-appellant. Counsel

for the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to highlight any material

irregularity or illegality in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both

the Courts below.

In view of the discussion above, no question of law, much less

any substantial question of law, arises for determination by this Court in the

present case. The present appeal is wholly devoid of any merit and is

dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Dismissed.

Whether reportable: YES/NO

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.04.11 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh