The court held that the plaintiff must substantiate claims with concrete evidence, and failing to do so results in dismissal of the suit, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on the claiming party.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER)

1. Since the captioned first appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Morbi, District Rajkot in Special Civil Suit no.86 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit”), with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, both the appeals are decided and disposed of by this common CAV judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit.

1.1 First Appeal no.2521 of 2007, has been filed by the defendant no.2 challenging the impugned judgment whereby, the learned Judge, has while partly allowing the suit, ordered the plaintiff to recover from the defendant no.2 the amount of Octroi i.e. Rs.18,37,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 9% on Rs.18,37,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand only) from the date of institution of the suit till its realization, coupled with the further amount of Rs.5,001/- (Rupees Five Thousand One only) towards the amount of notice charges. While First Appeal no.4567 of 2007, is filed by the plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment insofar as, the learned Judge has disallowed the amount of penalty i.e. Rs.1,83,70,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Three Lakh Seventy Thousand only). Hence, the captioned appeals. 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 The issue involved in the suit was that the plaintiff company was appointed octroi Ijardar from the period between 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 and was granted right to recover octroi for octroi limits of Maliya-Miyana Gram Panchayat. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was entitled to charge octori duty on all goods which enter the Octroi limits of Maliya-Miyana Panchayat area for the consumption, use or sale. It was the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.2 was installing the pipeline from Kandla to Loni as a contractor of defendant no.1 and the material for the above said purpose was brought to the local limits of village: Maliya on or about April, 2000 and, therefore, the plaintiff had demanded the bills of the said goods for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of octroi. However, the defendants neither produced the bills nor exemption certificate. It is the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the defendant approached the police authority and with their aid, they got released the goods from the custody of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.2,02,12,001/- (Rupees Two Crores Two Lakhs and Twelve Thousand One only) being the amount of octroi, penalty and notice charges with costs at running interest @ 12% from the date of suit till realisation of the said amount.

2.2 Upon service of the summons to the defendants, the defendant No.2 appeared and filed written statement vide Exh.20. It is the case of the defendant no.2 that the plaintiff has miserably failed to give the exact date on which goods entered the village. While it is the case of defendant No.2 that pipes and allied machinery entered before 31.03.2000 and the work known as stringing was completed before 31.03.2000 and that installation work was started on 08.03.2000 and was completed on 16.03.2000. Moreover, it is the case of defendant in the written statement that none of the goods / machineries have entered within the limits and that the whole Gram Panchayat local limits cannot be said to be octroi limit of Village Maliya-Miyana. It is the case of the de