Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Co-Operative Supply And ... vs Ajay Kumar And Ors on 5 August, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
119 RSA-3688-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 05.08.2024
Punjab State Co-Operative Supply and ....Appellants
Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr
VERSUS
Ajay Kumar & Ors ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Gaganinder Singh Barsat, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2019 passed by the Trial
Court and that of the First Appellate Court dated 16.08.2023.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondents, who are owners of open plinths, had given the same on rent to
the defendant-appellants. The defendant-appellants vacated the plinths and
handed over its vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff-respondents on
31.03.2014. Rent for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 was due and
payable to the plaintiff-respondents. It was further the case that the
defendant-appellants had paid Rs.7,35,120/- to the plaintiff-respondents after
including TDS for the aforesaid period and Rs.2,28,768/- is still payable as
rent by the defendant-appellants and hence the present suit. In the written
statement it was admitted that the plinths in question were rented out by
Saran and co-owners. The plinths were vacated on 31.03.2014. It was further
integrity of this order/judgment
the case set up in the written statement that as per report of the Technical
Officer the plinths to the extent of 5400 MT had become unfit for storage of
foodgrains. So after deducting the said 5400 MT, the Markfed remained in
possession of 17550 MT capacity of plinths. Due to this reason about 1273
MT for the crop year 2011-12 was lying in the plinths in question and on
31.03.2013, 12748 MT for the year 2012-13 was stored on the plinths in
question. Hence, total storage during the period 2013-14 remains as 14021
MT and that the Markfed had already made a payment of Rs.7,35,118/-. It
was further the case that the Branch Manager, Markfed, Branch Zira had
requested to extend the sanction w.e.f. 01.04.2013 as the plinths were under
utilization for Markfed wheat stocks. On the request of the Branch Office,
Zira, ex-post sanction for hiring the plinths at the rate of 35 paisa per Qtl. per
month was granted by the District Committee from 01.04.2013 to
30.03.2014 on capacity basis and thereafter the plinths in question were
vacated by the Markfed and hence there was no amount due. On the basis of
the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
Rs.2,97,268/- from the defendant as prayed for ? OPP
2. In case the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the
plaintiff whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendente lite
and future interest as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to
file the present suit ? OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice as
required under the law ? OPD
5. Relief.
integrity of this order/judgment
3. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree
dated 05.08.2019. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred which
appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2023.
Hence, the present regular second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend
that the plinths were not usable qua 5400 MT and therefore the bill was
cleared as per the used amount.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, it has concurrently been found that the
defendant-appellants had simply examined one witness, namely Deepak
Kumar as DW1, who admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of
taking the plinths on rent the official of the department inspected the same
and thereafter he gave his fitness certificate. It was further observed that no
other document was placed on the record to show that the plinths had
become unfit for storage. In the absence of any evidence led by the
defendant-appellants to show that the plinths were not fit for storage, no
fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
05.08.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
