Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1559
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Confed & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Food Grain Dealer Association – Respondent
RSA-3480-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the appellants
The legal principle established is that adherence to procedural rules, such as weighment of goods in the presence of both parties, is crucial in determining claims related to the quantity of goods supplied and payment withholding.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Recovery Suit - Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 - Rules 24, 25
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent, an association of commission agents, filed a suit for recovery of payment for the supply of wheat. The defendant-appellants contested the suit, claiming shortage in the supplied wheat and withholding payment.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, which was upheld by the lower Appellate Court. The regular second appeal by the defendant-appellants was dismissed by the High Court.
Issues: Entitlement to recovery, notice under Section 80 CPC, maintainability of the suit, time-barred nature of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Courts relied on Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962, specifically Rules 24 and 25, to reject the defendant-appellants' claim of shortage in supplied wheat and withholding payment. The weighment of wheat was required to be done in the presence of both parties, and the defendant-appellants' failure to follow this procedure led to the dismissal of their claim.
Final Decision: The regular second appeal was dismissed, and the application for condonation of delay was also dismissed due to the inordinate delay and lack of convincing reasons.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. - CM-9425-C-2019 & RSA-3480-2019
1. The present application has been filed for condoning the delay of 842 days in filing the present regular second appeal.
2. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants against the judgements and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed.
3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that it is an association of commission agents working in New Grain Market, Gohana which has been registered by the District Registrar of Firms and Societies, Sonipat. In the financial year 2007-2008, the defendant-appellants ordered the plaintiffrespondent to purchase wheat. The plaintiff-respondent purchased and supplied 255648 bags of 50 kg each i.e. 1,27,824 quintals at the rate of Rs.750/- per quintal and other incidental charges, and bonus of Rs.100/- was to be paid to plaintiff-respondent by the defendant-appellants. The commission was settled at 2.5% on the amount of costs of wheat and the total commission was amounting to Rs.23,96,700/-. At the time of agreement, market fee @ 2%, cess 2%, labour at the rate of Rs.1.82 per bag for 49997 bags and Rs.1.92/- per bag for 205651/- bags was settled. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to Rs.11,54,06,011/-from the defendant-appellants on account of supply of wheat. The defendantappellants made part payment of the purchased wheat to the plaintiffrespondent and the last cheque was issued in the month of August 2007 but thereafter the defendant-appellants did not make any payment. It was prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs.3,09,998/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of wheat till its final realization may be passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
4. Upon notice, the defendant-appellants contested the suit and filed written statement. Apart from the preliminary objections raised, on merits it was averred that the wheat was purchased by the Department from New Grain Market and as per the guidelines for procurement of wheat during the season 2007-2008, it was the duty of the plaintiff-respondent to collect the bills from all commission agents and submit a consolidated statement to the Department along with purchase bills of wheat issued by the commission agents. It was stated that it was the duty of the plaintiffrespondent to ensure that the quantity of the wheat supplied to the Department was as per bills but the wheat supplied by the plaintiffrespondent was found short to the extent of 303.48 quintals and as such the cost of the same was deducted by the Department while making payment to the plaintiff-respondent.
5. The following issues were framed by the Trial Court :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.3,09,998/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of wheat till its final realization ? OPP
2. Whether the suit is bad for notice under Section 80 CPC ? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ? OPD
5. Relief.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, the Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 28.02.2014 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent and directed the defendantappellants to pay the amount which had been deducted on account of alleged shortage of quantity of wheat with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the said amount became due till its final realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellants which was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 26.07.2016. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the defendant-appellants.
7. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has contended that the wheat supplied by the plaintiff-respondent was short and therefore the defendant-appellants were justified to with-h
