Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp Ltd And ... vs Sant Singh And Ors on 11 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034360
RSA-3835-2014 (O&M) & connected cases 2024:PHHC:034360 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(210) RSA-3835-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : March 11, 2024
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and another
.. Appellants
Versus
Waryam Singh and others .. Respondents
(2) RSA-4748-2014 (O&M)
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and another
.. Appellants
Versus
Rupinder Singh and others .. Respondents
(3) RSA-5263-2014 (O&M)
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and another
.. Appellants
Versus
Sant Singh and others .. Respondents
(4) RSA-5907-2014 (O&M)
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and another
.. Appellants
Versus
Adresh Kumar .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants,
in all appeals.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 23-03-2024 03:44:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034360
RSA-3835-2014 (O&M) & connected cases 2024:PHHC:034360 2
Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for respondent-Waryam Singh
in RSA Nos.3835, 5263, 4748 of 2014.
Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate, and
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for respondent-R.S Bedi
in all appeals.
Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate and
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents
in RSA No.5263 of 2014.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-8917-C-2014 in RSA-3835-2014
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Delay of 07 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-11133-C-2014 in RSA-4748-2014
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Delay of 42 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-12408-C-2014 in RSA-5263-2014
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Delay of 12 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-14045-C-2014 in RSA-5907-2014
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Delay of 74 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-8918-C-2014 in RSA-3835-2014
CM-11134-C-2014 in RSA-4748-2014
CM-12409-C-2014 in RSA-5263-2014
CM-14046-C-2014 in RSA-5907-2014
As prayed for, the applications are allowed.
RSA-3835-2014 and connected cases
1. By this common order, four appeals, the details of which have
been given in the heading of the order, are being decided as all the appeals
involves the same question of law on similar facts.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034360
RSA-3835-2014 (O&M) & connected cases 2024:PHHC:034360 3
2. The present four appeals, arise out of the same civil suit filed
by the appellant-plaintiff seeking recovery of the amount from respondents
No. 1 to 4.
3. The appellant-Corporation filed a civil suit for recovery
alleging loss caused due to negligency, mismanagement etc. at the hands of
defendants No. 1 to 4, which suit was decreed by the trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 23.07.2011. Against the said decree, all the
respondents-defendants filed separate appeals, which appeals were allowed
by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2013
and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 23.07.2011 was set
aside and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff had been dismissed. Hence,
the present regular second appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the judgment and
decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 09.12.2013 is contrary to the
findings which have been recorded in the judgment of the trial Court and
the relief which has been given in paragraph 22 of the judgment dated
09.12.2013, is inconsistent with the findings which have been recorded in
paragraph 16 of the said judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that despite the fact
that respondent No.1 Waryam Singh was already held liable for the loss
sought to be recovered in the departmental enquiry but the suit filed by the
appellant-plaintiff qua Waryam Singh has still been dismissed by the lower
Appellate Court on the ground that the suit was filed by a day's delay.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the suit
filed by the appellants against all the defendants was within limitation
keeping in view the fact that the limitation period expired on Sunday and
the suit was filed very next day hence, keeping in view the provisions of
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034360
RSA-3835-2014 (O&M) & connected cases 2024:PHHC:034360 4
Section 4 of the Limitation Act, wherever the period of limitation expires on
a holiday, the suit can be filed on the very next day.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4
submits that in paragraph 16 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court,
it has already come on record that these respondents-defendants were not
posted at a particular station, where the loss was said to have been caused at
the relevant time and further that before their transfer from the station in
question, they had already handed over the charge to Waryam Singh, which
was recorded in writing, which writing has already come on record hence,
even in the departmental proceedings, defendants No. 2 to 4 had already
been exonerated and only Waryam Singh was held liable for the loss caused
to the Corporation hence, the findings which have been recorded by the
lower Appellate Court is based upon actual facts, which has been supported
by the evidence on record hence, the findings recorded by the lower
Appellate Court qua the non-maintainability of the allegation of loss caused
qua respondent-defendants No. 2 to 4, is liable to be upheld.
8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 further submits that
qua the claim of the suit within limitation, they have no objection in case,
the said finding is corrected by holding that the civil suit was within
limitation.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-
Waryam Singh submits that in the enquiry proceedings, which were
conducted by the Department, which was made the basis for suit for
recovery, respondent No.1 has only been held guilty to the tune of 40% of
the loss caused, which fact has also come in paragraph 16 of the judgment
of the lower Appellate Court hence, holding the respondent No.1 for all the
loss, is totally arbitrary and illegal and at the most, respondent No.1 can
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034360
RSA-3835-2014 (O&M) & connected cases 2024:PHHC:034360 5
only be made liable for the loss to the tune of 40% as held in the
departmental proceedings, on the basis of which, the lower Appellate Court
has recorded findings in paragraph 16 of the judgment.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
11. In order to find out whether the suit filed by the appellants was
within limitation, certain facts needs to be noticed.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that keeping in
view the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in case, the
finding which has been recorded by the Courts below in paragraph 20
regarding issue No.12 is decided in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, the
respondents-defendants will have no objection.
13. Even otherwise, it is a conceded position that the suit could
have been filed upto 02.08.1999 and keeping in view the calender of the
said year, 02.08.1999 was a holiday being a Sunday. That being so,
keeping in view the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, if the
period of limitation is expiring on a holiday, the suit can be filed very next
day so as to be treated within limitation. That being the factual position, the
lower Appellate Court failed to record the actual facts with regard to the
expiry of limitation on a holiday and the suit being filed on the very next
date. Keeping in view the said factual position, which is already on record,
coupled with the fact that the defendants are also not opposing that the suit
filed by the appellant-plaintiff was within limitation, the findings recorded
in paragraph 20 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court dated
09.12.2013 qua the suit being barred by limitation, are set aside and it is
held that the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was within limitation.
14. Now the question arise as to what relief is to be granted to the
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034360
RSA-3835-2014 (O&M) & connected cases 2024:PHHC:034360 6
appellants-plaintiff qua the findings which have been recorded by the lower
Appellate Court in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to rebut
that the factual position given therein, according to which the respondents
No. 2 to 4 were not posted at a particular station where the loss was said to
have been caused and prior to their transfer from the said station, they had
already handed over the charge in favour of respondent No.1 hence, no
loss/shortage caused could have been attributed upon them.
16. In the absence of rebuttal to the said factual aspect, the findings
recorded by the lower Appellate Court that the suit for recovery was
dismissed against respondents No. 2 to 4, needs no interference at the hands
of this Court and the same are upheld especially when in the departmental
proceedings also they were exonerated of the same allegations.
17. With regard to the question of recovery from respondent-
defendant No.1, it may be noticed that as per the findings recorded by the
Courts below, the appellant-plaintiff had conducted the departmental
proceedings against all the respondents and had found that respondent No.1
namely Waryam Singh had caused loss but only to the extent of 40%. The
said finding has already been recorded in paragraph 16 of the judgment of
the lower Appellate Court. Once, the said finding is a matter of fact and has
been supported by evidence on record, only the loss caused to the extent of
40% can be recovered from Waryam Singh i.e. respondent No.1 hence, the
judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 09.12.2013 is
accordingly modified to the extent that the suit filed by the appellant-
plaintiff was within limitation and the suit is only allowed to the extent that
only 40% of the loss caused can be recovered by the appellants-plaintiff and
that too only from respondent No.1 Waryam Singh. The claim of recovery
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034360
RSA-3835-2014 (O&M) & connected cases 2024:PHHC:034360 7
against the other defendants, as already set aside, by the lower Appellate
Court, is upheld.
18. As the recovery of the amount has been held valid against
respondent No.1 and the trial Court had also given the interest on the
amount to be recovered, the said grant of interest @ 6% per annum is also
held maintainable against 40% amount, which the respondent No.1 is held
liable to pay.
19. It is made clear that the said interest will start from the date the
suit was filed till the actual payment by respondent No.1.
20. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected cases.
March 11, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
