IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (202)

Date of Decision:-04.02.2026 Market Committee Budhlada and Another … Appellants Versus M/s Shri Roshan Oil and Cotton Mills, Budhlada ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present :-

Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate with Ms. Srisuti, Advocate and Mr. Sudrishti, Advocate for respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .( ORAL )

1. The appellants/defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1996 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, whereby the well-reasoned findings and decree of the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Mansa, dated 20.10.1995 was reversed, respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal. The Appellants seek the restoration of the decree passed by the learned Trial Court, as the impugned judgment is ex-facie unsustainable and vitiated by manifest perversity, serious legal infirmities, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidentiary record. It is respectfully submitted that the erroneous reversal of the Trial Court’s findings has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appellants pray that this Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and reinstate the judicious decree of the learned Trial Court to secure the ends of justice.

2. The sequence of events antecedent to, and culminating in, the present appeal may be succinctly set out as under -

The plaintiff-appellant, engaged in the business of mustard oil extraction, instituted the present suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Market Committee from recovering market fees, contending such demand to be illegal. It was alleged that the plaintiff purchased mustard seeds from outside Punjab through commission agents, and, after completion of transactions and weighment, transported the seeds to his mill for oil extraction. No agreements were executed, nor were the goods weighed or delivered within Budhlada market; hence, the plaintiff claimed no liability to pay the fees. Despite serving a notice under Section 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 on 1.8.1990, and filing a writ petition before the High Court on 23.8.1990, the recovery was not stayed, prompting the present civil suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit primarily on the ground that it was barred by limitation, being required to be filed within six months of receipt of the notice. On merits, it was contended that under Section 23 of the Act, the plaintiff was liable to pay market fees, as he engaged in the purchase and sale of agricultural commodities within the market area, and the importation of produce into the market triggered the statutory obligation to remit market fees and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Following a meticulous and comprehensive examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of both parties, the learned trial Court has framed the issues for adjudication to ensure a precise, thorough, and judicious determination of the respective claims and defenses, which are as follows:-

1. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

2. Whether the suit is within time?OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-jointer of the necessary parti es?

OPD

4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of legal objections No.5 of the written statement?OPD

5. Whether the suit is not competent in view of legal objections No.6 and 7 of W/S?OPD

6. Whether the impugned demand of the defendant is illegal and void and is operative qua the plaintiff?OPP.

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to in junction prayed for?OPP

8. Whether the suit is false and vexatious and the defendant is entitled to special costs if so to what amount? OPD

9. Relief.

5. Both parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to adduce evidence