Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Punam Chand vs Rajasthan Fertilizers ... on 9 October, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:44704]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 173/2015
Punam Chand
----Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Fertilizers
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Rawal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
09/10/2025
1. This Second Civil Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 (for brevity, CPC) has been filed on behalf of the
appellant - plaintiff against the judgment dated 29.11.2014
passed by the learned appellate court in Civil First Appeal
No.43/2008 whereby the appeal filed on his behalf was dismissed
and the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 passed by the
learned civil court in Civil Original Suit No.22/1998 in favour of the
respondent - defendant for a suit for recovery of money was
affirmed.
2. Facts in brief revolving around the present case are that the
appellant - plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of
Rs.37,618.95/- against the respondent - defendant alleging that
the appellant - plaintiff and the respondent - defendant had a long
standing relationship of buying and selling agricultural produce on
credit. The appellant - plaintiff sold agricultural produce such as
rai, chana, and other produce to the respondent - defendant firm
(Uploaded on 12/10/2025 at 02:44:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44704] (2 of 5) [CSA-173/2015]
from time. The total outstanding amount, after deducting the
expenses of gunny bags, weighing, fertilizers, and sacks, was
calculated to be Rs.37,618.95/-. The respondent - defendant
failed to make the aforesaid payment and a notice dated
24.12.1997 was served upon it by the appellant - plaintiff.
However, since no reply was given by the respondent - defendant
the appellant - plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery.
3. The respondent - defendant filed a counter claim and in their
counter claim stated that the there is no long standing relationship
between the respondent - defendant and appellant - plaintiff in
the purchase/sale of agricultural produce. It was stated that the
appellant - plaintiff sold the agricultural produce on behalf of
Kailash Chand Vagaji Charli, Kailash Chand Danaji Charli and
other people and the appellant - plaintiff did benami transactions,
and the respondent - defendant had no contact with these
persons. The appellant - plaintiffs is not a farmer and he does not
have any agricultural land. The counter claim submitted by the
respondent/defendant was for an amount of Rs.36,619.55/- which
was after adjusting the claim of the appellant - plaintiff and the
amount credited to the appellant's account by Kailash Chand
Danaji.
4. The appellant - plaintiff has filed a reply to the respondent's -
defendant's counter-claim and stated that he has not committed
any benami transactions of sale of agricultural produce, and the
plaintiff has not sold any crop on behalf of Kailash Chandra Danaji
and only signed the document as a witness and the said amount
has been received by Kailash Chandra Vagaji. Therefore, the
respondent - defendant has no right to adjust the due amount of
(Uploaded on 12/10/2025 at 02:44:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44704] (3 of 5) [CSA-173/2015]
Kailash Chandra Vagaji from the account of the appellant -
plaintiff.
5. The learned civil court, after hearing both the parties on
issues framed by it and considering the oral and documentary
evidence arrived at a conclusion that the appellant - plaintiff is not
a farmer and only carries benami transactions for sale/purchase of
agricultural produce and he is not entitled to receive the claimed
amount from the defendant. The learned trial vide judgment and
decree dated 23.10.2008 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant
- plaintiff and accepted the counter-claim as presented by the
respondent - defendant and decreed the payment of
Rs.36,619.55/- to the defendant along with interest from the date
of filing of the counter-claim.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree
dated 23.10.2008, the appellant - plaintiff preferred an appeal
under Section 96 of CPC being Civil First Appeal No.43/2008 and
the learned appellate court was pleased to dismiss the same after
hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated 29.11.2014.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant - plaintiff while opposing
the judgments under consideration submitted the learned trial
court has erred in coming to a conclusion in relation to issues No.1
& 2 and its findings are contrary to the oral and documentary
evidence produced before it. Learned counsel further submitted
that from a bare perusal of the evidence available on record, it is
apparent that the appellant - plaintiff is a farmer and has not
transacted any benami transactions on behalf of other people. He
thus prayed that this second appeal may be allowed and the
(Uploaded on 12/10/2025 at 02:44:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44704] (4 of 5) [CSA-173/2015]
orders impugned passed by the learned appellate court as well as
learned civil court may be quashed and set aside.
8. On the contrary, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Rawal appearing on
behalf of respondent - defendant submitted that both the courts
below have concurrently held that the appellant - plaintiff is not a
farmer and only carries out benami transactions of agricultural
produce on behalf of other people. He also submitted that the
learned court below has rightly decided the issues framed by it
after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led
by the parties to the suit.
9. Lastly, he submitted that the questions of appellant - plaintiff
being a farmer or that the appellant - plaintiff is entitled to receive
any money from respondent - defendant is a question of fact
which has rightly been held against the appellant - plaintiff by
both the learned courts below in as much as no substantial
question of law worth consideration of this Court, arises in the
present second appeal and therefore, the same shall be dismissed
by this Court.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgments.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the questions
involved in the present appeal are pure questions of facts, based
on appraisal of the evidence available on record. After perusing
the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the learned civil as
well as appellate courts have considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence led by the parties in its true perspective.
The appellant - plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he is a
(Uploaded on 12/10/2025 at 02:44:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44704] (5 of 5) [CSA-173/2015]
farmer or that the agricultural produce sold by him was owned by
him.
12. This Court also finds that the learned counsel for the
appellant - plaintiff fails to point out any perversity or illegality in
the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. No
question of law, much less, no substantial question of law is
involved in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100
of CPC which requires adjudication of this Court.
13. Resultantly, this Second appeal filed by the appellant -
plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment dated
29.11.2014 passed by the learned appellate court in Civil First
Appeal No.43/2008 and judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008
passed by the learned civil court in Civil Original Suit No.22/1998,
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
22-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 12/10/2025 at 02:44:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
