IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.10.2025 M/s Chardikala Commission Agent and another … Appellants Versus Bhim Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Bikramjeet Singh Jatana, Advocate, for the appellants.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is defendants’ appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2023, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2022, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla, vide which the suit for recovery instituted by the plaintiff was allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff (Bhim Singh) instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.12,15,700/-. The case set up was that defendant No.1 (Firm M/s Chardikala Commission Agent) was a commission agent firm and defendant No.2 (Harwinder Singh) was its Proprietor. The plaintiff used to sell his wheat and paddy crops to the defendants, and the defendant-firm used to issue J-forms to him.

3.1 On 24.04.2015, the plaintiff sold his wheat crop weighing 122 quintals worth Rs.1,75,177.28p. J-forms bearing serial No.217 dated 24.04.2015 duly signed by authorized signatory of the defendant-firm, namely Kewal Singh, were issued. Further, on 27.04.2015, the plaintiff sold wheat crop weighing 161 quintals to the defendant-firm worth to Rs.23,17,173.60p and J-forms bearing serial No.225 dated 27.04.2015 were issued. Again on 08.05.2015, the plaintiff sold his wheat crop weighing 150 qunitals to the defendant-firm worth to Rs.2,15,886/- and J-forms were issued bearing serial No.226 dated 08.05.2015. Further, on 05.11.2015, the plaintiff sold his paddy crop weighing 189 quintals to the defendant-firm worth to Rs.2,71,116.72p. The defendant issued J-forms bearing serial No.258 dated 05.11.2015 in favour of the plaintiff.

3.2 It was averred that the amount depicted in the J-forms had not been paid, and a sum of Rs.8,93,907.64p was outstanding. It was further averred that the plaintiff was also entitled to recover interest @ Rs.1% p.m. w.e.f. 24.04.2015 to 10.04.2018, which amounted to Rs.12,15,700/-. It was also stated that the plaintiff had issued legal notice dated 19.03.2018, but no response was received.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendant. The details of the wheat sold by the plaintiff were given in the written statement. It was averred that the accounts had been settled from time to time and nothing was due to be paid to the plaintiff.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.12,15,700/- from defendant, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit filed is within limitation? OPP 3. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit? OPD

5. Relief.”

6. Parties led their respective evidence.

7. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2022 and the appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2023, leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgments and decrees are not sustainable. He submits that instead of filing a suit for recovery, the plaintiff ought to have instituted a suit for rendition of accounts and recovery. He further submits that the entire amount had already been paid to the plaintiff, which is evident from the copy of the ledger produced during the course of evidence. However, the same was not taken into consideration by either of the Courts below. Learned counsel submits that under the circumstances, the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside.

10. I have considered the submissions made by lear