[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Krishna Rice Mill vs Hafed Thrg Md Pkl And Ors on 30 April, 2026
RSA-3667-2013 (O&M) 1 of 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
216 RSA-3667-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.04.2026
M/s. Krishna Rice Mill ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Hafed through its Managing Director, Panchkula
and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Narayan Prasad Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No. 3 to 5.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal;
whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration and mandatory
injunction although decreed by learned Trial Court, has been dismissed by
learned First Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed instant
Civil Suit seeking declaration and mandatory injunction. It was the
pleaded case of the appellant that defendants No. 1 & 2/Hafed had
entered into an Agreement with the plaintiff Miller vide Contract No. 65
dated 30.01.2004 for custom milling of Govt. paddy from the plaintiff
Miller. It was pleaded that plaintiff had duly supplied consignment of rice
after custom milling to Hafed by delivering the said consignment directly
RSA-3667-2013 (O&M) 2 of 8
in the godowns of Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as
'FCI'). Therefore, Hafed was under obligation to pay a sum of Rs.2,81,969/-
(actual amount Rs.2,68,380/- + interest Rs.13,589/-) to the plaintiff Miller.
It was stated that although defendants No.1 and 2/Hafed had made the
said payment to the plaintiff however subsequently, they had made a
deduction of Rs.2,81,969/- from other bills of the plaintiff vide letter No.
FCI/BG/NRW/Proc-3/2004/1259 dated 17.07.2004 Ex.D12. It was
accordingly pleaded that impugned letter dated 17.07.2004 be declared
illegal; and decree for mandatory injunction be passed directing the
defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,81,969/- to the plaintiff alongwith
interest @ 12% p.a. i.e. total amount of Rs.3 lacs. Hence, present suit was
filed on 12.12.2005.
3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the
parties, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narwana had decreed the suit of
the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2011 as follows: -
"43. As a sequel of findings on all the issues, suit of the
plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs. Defendants No.1 & 2
(Hafed) are directed to pay sum of Rs.2,81,969/- to the
plaintiff Miller with pendelite and future interest 6% per
annum. However, defendants No.1 & 2 (Hafed) shall be at
liberty to recover said amount from defendants No.3 to 5
(FCI) in accordance with law. Further defendants No.3 to 5
(FCI) shall also be within its right to resort to recover said
amount from Kapil Rice Mills, Kalayat in accordance with law.
In the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand, limitation
to recover aforesaid amount by defendants shall commence
RSA-3667-2013 (O&M) 3 of 8
from the date of decree. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File after due compliance be consigned to the record room."
4. Against the same, defendants No.1 and 2 had preferred Civil
Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jind which came to be
accepted vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013; thereby dismissing
the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.
5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that the learned First Appellate Court was in error in non-suiting the
appellant. It is contended that the judgement and decree passed by ld. first
appellate court are totally wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction, perverse &
misreading of evidence & law and are based on illegal, irrelevant,
insufficient, erroneous and conjectural grounds.
6. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed;
and the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013 passed by
learned First Appellate Court be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
vehemently oppose submission of the appellant and submit that judgment
of the learned Trial Court is based on a patent misreading of facts and has
therefore, rightly been set aside by the learned First Appellate Court. It is
submitted that in actual fact, there were 2 contracts, the same being
custom milling Contract No. 65 dated 30.01.2004 between the plaintiff and
Hafed; and second Agreement being direct rice milling Contract No. 84
dated 02.03.2004 between FCI and one Kapil Rice Mills. It is submitted that
confusion arose in the matter as one Suresh Kumar is Power of Attorney of
RSA-3667-2013 (O&M) 4 of 8
both the said Millers i.e. the plaintiff-Krishna Rice Mill and Kapil Rice Mills.
As a result of the said confusion, respondents had mistakenly made
payment to the plaintiff under the wrong impression. It is submitted that in
actual fact no rice had been delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Neither to Hafed, nor to FCI. Delivery had actually been made by Kapil Rice
Mills. As such, when the mistake came to light, said deductions were made
from the account of the plaintiff. Thus, the impugned judgment suffers from
no error. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be dismissed.
8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have
heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the
submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents.
9. It is a proven fact on record that the Contract No. 65 dated
30.01.2004 Ex.D7 has been executed between the plaintiff i.e. Krishna Rice
Mills and defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. Hafed. The said Contract was for
custom milling of Govt. Paddy. Plaintiff witness PW1 Pawan Kumar has
admitted in his cross-examination that although contract was with Hafed
yet delivery was made at FCI godown.
10. It is also an undisputed fact on record that a direct rice milling
Contract No. 84 was executed between defendants no.3 to 5/FCI and one
Kapil Rice Mills. Admittedly, one Suresh Kumar was POA holder of the
plaintiff as proved from the copy of SPA Ex.D6 executed by deceased
plaintiff Kapoor Chand in favour of Suresh Kumar. Said Suresh Kumar was
also POA holder of the abovesaid Kapil Rice Mills as proved from copy of
RSA-3667-2013 (O&M) 5 of 8
SPA dated 21.10.2003 Ex.D6/A executed by Sandeep Garg of said Kapil Rice
Mills in favour of Suresh Kumar.
11. Moreover, except for the said Memo of weight check Ex.P-1,
plaintiff has produced no other proof of delivery. Whereas, in the Rice
Acceptance Register of FCI Ex.D2, delivery is recorded to have been made
by Kapil Rice Mills Kalayat. This fact has been admitted by official witness
DW1 Laxmi Narain, Manager, Hafed who has stated in his examination in
chief Ex. DW1/A that the consignment in question was in actual fact
delivered by Kapil Rice Mills and payment had also been made to the said
rice mill and therefore recovery by Hafed was justified as impugned
payment had been wrongly paid to the plaintiff miller. This aspect of the
matter has not been dealt with at all by the trial court while decreeing the
suit of the plaintiff. In fact, this factor has been brushed side by the learned
trial court by observing that "Further in view of clear cut admissions of
witnesses of defendant admitting authenticity of weight check memo Ex.P1
in favour of plaintiff Miller (Krishna Rice Mills), appearance of name of Kapil
Rice Mills in the Rice Acceptance Register Ex.D2 maintained by FCI, didn't
make any difference ........." It is my view that such important evidence could
not have been discarded so casually.
12. Plaintiff has been unable to explain as to why against 6000 MT
of paddy given to him for milling, only 500 bags were delivered. Even no
other pertinent information, except for Weight Check Memo, has been
submitted by the plaintiff. Case of plaintiff has to be proved on its own
RSA-3667-2013 (O&M) 6 of 8
strength and plaintiff cannot rely on weaknesses and deficiencies in case of
defendants.
13. The alleged admissions on part of the defendant witnesses are
that it had been contended on behalf of the plaintiff before the District
Courts that mistakenly FCI had incorporated the said consignment in the
name of Kapil Rice Mills, Kalayat; and that this mistake has been admitted
by official witness DW1 Laxmi Narain, Manager, Hafed; and DW2 Surender
Kumar Gosain, Manager (QC), FCI, by admitting that initial payment of the
disputed amount was made to the plaintiff. However, it is my view that the
same is a misreading or piecemeal reading of the evidence by the Trial
Court.
14. This is especially so in view of the fact that the defendants in
their evidence had also produced an investigation report Ex.D3 wherein it
was concluded that on reconciliation of stock amount, impugned deduction
was found to have been made in the best interest of FCI.
15. The errors in the findings returned by the trial Court are
further fortified from the fact that plaintiff has failed to produce any record
whatsoever, which was required to be prepared for milling and delivery of
Paddy. As noted above, except for weight check memo Ex.P-1, appellant has
not produced any documentary evidence whatsoever to show any details
with regard to receipt of stock of paddy, milling details, and then delivery
details of rice. As per the plaintiff, they have supplied 500 bags of rice after
milling to FCI under Contract No. 65. Whereas as per the respondents, it
was Kapil Rice Mills, Kalayat, which has delivered this rice. To prove its case,
RSA-3667-2013 (O&M) 7 of 8
plaintiff has not produced any evidence except for the Weight Check Memo
Ex.P1, as per which 6000 MTs of paddy was supplied to the plaintiff. As
such, plaintiff was required to prove that the 500 bags allegedly supplied by
the plaintiff to FCI, were part of 6000 MTs. However, except that the Weight
Check Memo, the plaintiff has produced no other evidence. Plaintiff has
also failed to produce entire record establishing that he had returned 6000
MTs to FCI. Needless to say, as rightly observed by the learned first
Appellate Court, plaintiff case has to stand on its own legs and cannot rely
upon any weaknesses in the case of the defendant.
16. Furthermore, case of the plaintiff was further weakened from
the fact that his own GPA Suresh Kumar had admitted that this delivery was
from Kapil Rice Mills on account of Contract No. 84. Plaintiff has denied
execution of GPA in favour of said Suresh. However, plaintiff is then unable
to explain the letter dated 9.5.2005 Ex.D5 written by Suresh Kumar, wherein
it was affirmed that he was duly appointed attorney of plaintiff miller as
well as Kapil Rice Mills. Plaintiff has also been unable to explain the copy of
SPA Ex.D6/A executed by deceased plaintiff Kapoor Chand in favour of
Suresh.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert or
dispute the above said facts and findings.
18. In view of the discussion above, no ground is made out to
interfere in the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013 passed
by learned Additional District Judge, Jind. The present Regular Second
Appeal is hereby dismissed.
RSA-3667-2013 (O&M) 8 of 8
19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
30.04.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
