RSA-379-2023 (O&M)

Page 1 of 6

Sr. No.117

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-379-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.02.2023

M/s R.B.N.S. Sugar Mills Ltd.

...Appellant

Vs.

M/s Mohinder Kumar Ravinder Kumar Motia Khan and another

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Amit Kumar Walia, Advocate

for the appellant.

****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before

learned trial Court.

2.

Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below,

defendant No.1 (appellant herein) are in second appeal before this Court assailing

trial Court judgment and decree dated 22.02.2019, as upheld by learned First

Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022.

3.

Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Courts below are that plaintiff No.1

is the sole proprietorship concern and plaintiff No.2 is its sole proprietor.

Defendant No.1 is limited company and defendant Nos.2 to 4 on behalf of

defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs at Mandi Gobindgarh and showed their

intention to sell old used sugar machinery scrap and accordingly the plaintiffs

agreed to purchase the same and thereafter for purchase of the material the

plaintiffs deposited an amount of Rs.18,10,000/- in advance in the account of

defendant No.1 through RTGS i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.08.2011, Rs.4,10,000/- on

01.10.2011 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 07.10.2011 from their bank account i.e. Bank of

Maharashtra Branch Mandi Gobindgarh. It was further averred that defendants

ASHISH

2023.02.24 16:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

RSA-379-2023 (O&M)

Page 2 of 6

sent material to plaintiffs only vide Bill No.110061 dated 01.10.2011 amounting to

Rs.3,53,654.40/- but thereafter the defendants never sent any material to the

plaintiffs. Even the plaintiffs approached the defendants several times to send

material of the remaining amount but all in vain. After deducting the amount of

bill, Rs.14,56,345.60/- was still due and lying deposited with the defendants. It

was further averred that the defendants were illegally and unlawfully withholding

the said amount of the plaintiffs with them and as such the plaintiffs were entitled

to claim interest @ 18% per annum from the defendants. Hence, the suit for

recovery of Rs.22,20,927.20/- i.e. principal plus interest amount.

4.

Upon notice, defendants-appellants appeared and filed written

statement contesting the claim, taking preliminary objections of maintainability of

suit being frivolous, baseless, without any cause of action, no locus standi,

misjoinder & non-joinder of parties, time barred and also challenged the

jurisdiction of the Court. Defendants also denied the purchase of any material by

the plaintiffs from them.

5.

Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed:

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount of

Rs.22,20,927.20/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per

annum? OPP

2. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD

3. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean

hands, if so its effect?OPD

4. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi

to file the suit?OPD

5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decided

suit?OPD

6. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is bad for misjoinder and non-

joinder of necessary parties?OPD

7. Whether suit is time barred?OPD

8. Whether suit is hit by the provisions of Specific Relief Act?

OPD

9. Whether the suit is not in accordance with the mandatory

provisions of CPC and is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11

CPC?

10. Relief.

ASHISH

2023.02.24 16:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

RSA-379-2023 (O&M)

Page 3 of 6

6.

The parties to the suit adduced their oral as well as documentary

evidence in su