The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of agency principles, liability for breach of contract, and the burden of proof in contract disputes.

R.B.Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Limited and two others filed a civil suit against M/S Nathumal Ram Niwas for realization of Rs. 99,654.31/- along with interest pendentelite and future @ 18 % per annum in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The same was registered as Original Suit No. 55 of 1985. Additional Chief Director of Sugar, Directorate of Sugar, New Delhi and the Union of India, Department of Food, Directorate of Sugar, were the other plaintiffs along with R.B.Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Limited. Defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. When the respondent died during the pendency of the original suit, his legal representatives, namely, defendant no. 1/1 Suresh Chandra, 1/2 Dinesh Chandra and 1/3 Suresh Kumar were substituted in place of their father Ram Niwas Bansal. After his death, the suit was contested by his legal representatives by filing an additional written statement.

2. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of parties, framed the followings issues:

(i) Whether as per the contract, on account of non-lifting of sugar, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 99654.31/- to the plaintiff ?

(ii) Whether because of the obstruction by the plaintiff, the sugar could not be lifted ? If yes, then it’s effect ?

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by Forward Contract Regulation Act ?

(iv) Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit ?

(v) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled ?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief ?

3. PW 1 Pargat Singh, PW 2 Samay Singh and PW 3 Vinod Kumar Aggarwal were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. DW 1 Suresh Kumar was examined on behalf of the defendants. After considering the documentary and oral evidence on record, the suit was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Roorkee, vide, judgment and order dated 17.05.1994. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, a Civil Appeal (being Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1994) was preferred before the learned District Judge, which was transferred to Additional District Judge, Roorkee. Learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and order dated 07.02.1997, partly allowed the appeal and, accordingly, the suit was partly decreed holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 51,863.86/- from the defendants no. 1 to 3 along with simple interest at the rate of 18 % per annum till filing of the suit. Plaintiffs were also held entitled to 9 % simple interest per annum on the principal amount, i.e., Rs. 51,863.86/- during the pendency of the suit.

4. Aggrieved against the same, present Second Appeal is preferred by defendants/appellants against the plaintiffs/respondents. As many as 25 substantial questions of law were suggested in the memo of Second Appeal. No substantial question was framed while admitting the said appeal. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants pressed the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the document 113GA containing terms of contract was not admissible in evidence and the finding of the appellate court is illegal on the score and the provisions of Sections 59, 60, 63, 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act have been misinterpreted by the First Appellate Court?

2. Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court on the interpretation of para 4(3) of the document 133GA is based on misinterpretation of the document and is perverse?

3. Whether after three months of the appointment of the appellant as agent the work done by the appellant was not under the contract and therefore the terms of the contract are not applicable to the appellant and the finding recorded by the First Appellate Curt is perverse and is based on misinterpretation of the document 133-Ga?

4. Whether the burden of proving the rates of sugar on relevant dates was on the plaintiff who failed to discharge the same and the first appellate court has shifted the onus on the appellant illegally?

5. Let us now refer back to