IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.10.2025

1.CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

Steel Authority of India and others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Rajeev Gupta and another ...Respondent(s)

AND

2.RSA-1146-2021 (O&M)

Steel Authority of India and others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Rajeev Gupta and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners in CR-7485-2017 and for the appellants in RSA-1146-2021.

Mr. Pavan Malik, Advocate for the respondents in CR-7485-2017 and for the respondents in RSA-1146-2021.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CR-7485-2017 (O&M)

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants against the order dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh; whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside exparte judgment and decree dated 25.01.2011 and ex parte order dated 09.03.2010, has been dismissed. Challenge in the present petition is also laid to the order dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure P- 7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib; whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated

13.07.2016, has been dismissed.

RSA-1146-2021 (O&M)

Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make delivery of a remainder of order dated 19.03.1998, the payment of which had already been received by the defendants being the goods short supplied by the defendants on account of defect in weigh-bridge, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint, are that the plaintiffs had been purchasing the iron and steel material from the appellants/defendants. On 19.03.1998, plaintiffs placed an order for supply of 1500 MT slab end cuttings. Order was accepted by the defendants; and payments made by the plaintiffs by way of demand drafts were also accepted and encashed. On 6.4.1998, plaintiff took delivery of the order supplied by way of four wagons and detected shortage of 38.545 M/T in these four wagons. Plaintiff immediately informed the defendant regarding the said shortage on the same date. It was informed by the defendants that officers are being deputed to visit the spot for verification of weight at the spot. Plaintiff was informed by the Deputy CMM Delhi/defendant no.5 that the Weigh bridge where goods were weighed was defective. Team of officials visited on 8.4.1998 and they were apprised of the shortage detected in four wagons. Plaintiff made repeated requests to the team of the defendant to weigh the material. However, the delivered material was not weighed. Accordingly, plaintiff had no option but to take delivery because entire value of goods already stood paid. Thereafter, despite repeated intimation, defendant slept over the matter and did not even bother to give reply. Plaintiff sent legal notice through counsel on 20.5.1998. However, no reply was received from the defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff again sent a Notice on 15.10.1999 under registered cover. But defendant never replied. Hence, present suit was filed on 16.3.2000.

3. The defendant/appellants put in appearance and filed written statement. However subsequently, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte by order dated 9.3.2010; as the learned counsel representing the defendant pleaded ‘no instructions.’

4. Consequentially, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly-decreed vide ex parte judgment dated 25.01.2011 for the relief of recovery of Rs.24,09,153/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from 07.04.1998 till actual realization along with cost of the suit.

5. The Civil Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the ld. Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vi