IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.03.2025 Punjab Tourist Development Corporation ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s. Sharma and Company ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. B.D.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.7,34,425.89 along with interest, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is the ‘plaintiff’; and the respondent is the ‘defendant’.

3. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the defendant-Company had taken licence of the Tourist Complex of the plaintiff-Corporation/appellant herein, at Kaputhala for running the business of food, beverages and occupancy of rooms vide Licence Agreement dated 20.01.1998 on payment of licence fee of Rs. 51,700/- per month.The defendant had deposited security amount of Rs.6,20,400/- with the plaintiff Corporation. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that since December 1999the defendant had become consistent defaulter and had failed to pay the licence fee. On 7.3.2001, an amount of Rs.6,86,300/- became due from the defendant-Company; and Rs.6,94,600/- was due as penalty for not depositing the licence fee. Even a legal notice was served upon the defendant, however to no avail. Hence, the present suit.

4. The defendant-Company filed written statement contesting the suit by inter alia stating that the defendant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the demand of plaintiff. Despite that, the plaintiff had taken over the possession of the entire business of the defendant as a result of which, defendant-Company became idle and could not earn anything. It was further averred that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. It may be mentioned here that previously this suit was decided ex parte vide judgment dated 3.8.2013. However, vide order dated 10.09.2015, application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte order and judgment was allowed. Issues had already been framed in the ex parte judgment which are as under:

“1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.

7,34,425.89 along with interest? OPP

2 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPP

3 Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPP

4 Whether the suit is filed by a competent person? OPP

5 Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD Relief But onus to prove all these issues was placed upon the plaintiff which is not as per law. Accordingly, issues are hereby re-framed as under:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.

7,34,425.89 along with interest, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD Relief.”

6. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the ld. trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff; and accordingly vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2016, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2020. Hence, the present second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Corporation inter alia submits that the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are liable to be set aside as the learned Courts below have failed to consider the pleadings, as also the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties in right perspective. The suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed merely on assumptions, conjectures and surmises. The learned Courts below have failed to take into consideration that