##PAGE1##

1

RSA-3024-2025 (O&M) &

RSA-3061-2025 (O&M)

[309] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

[1] RSA-3024-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 29.01.2026

Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation,

Chandigarh and another …Appellants

versus

M/s Mohan Lal Madan Lal and another ….Respondents

[2] RSA-3061-2025 (O&M)

Punjab Agro Food Grain Corporation …Appellants

and another

versus

M/s Mohan Lal Madan Lal and another ….Respondents

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] These two appeals arise out of the cross-suits filed by rival

parties. Since the suits are based on same transaction of purchase of wheat

by the appellants from the Commission Agents-plaintiffs, the facts are being

culled out from RSA-3024-2025 arising out of Civil Suit No.1211 of 2015.

[2] As per the facts of the case, the appellants purchased 10030

bags of wheat through plaintiffs w.e.f. 14.04.2014 till 28.04.2014. A sum of

₹1,15,058.76 was payable to the plaintiffs for the same. The appellants

however vide communication dated 20.05.2014 claimed shortage of 630

RAJNEESH SHARMA

2026.02.03 15:31

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

RSA-3024-2025 (O&M) &

RSA-3061-2025 (O&M)

bags of wheat out of the total stock. This led to the dispute between the

parties. Plaintiffs in the present suit, i.e. Commission Agents, filed suit

seeking recovery of ₹1,15,058.76 along with interest, claiming of having

supplied the total wheat stock to the defendants. Defendants on the other

hand, filed cross-suit, claiming deficiency of the same stock, i.e. 630 bags of

wheat, and sought recovery of ₹6,27,291/- along with interest.

[3] Both the Courts below decreed the suit filed by the Commission

Agents, dismissing the suit filed by the appellants, as it was proved on

record that qua deficiency in the stock, Inspector employee of the

defendants, namely Suraj Pal, was chargesheeted. FIR No.57 dated

05.05.2014 was lodged against security staff qua siphoning of the wheat

stock in question with Police Station Julkan. Defendants though were in

possession of best piece of evidence in the form of gate pass but opted not to

produce the same before the Court. In these circumstances, the Courts

below non-suited the appellants and decreed the suit filed by the

Commission Agents.

[4] Learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to dispute

the factum of Inspector, i.e. employee of the appellants having been

chargesheeted and the security staff having been criminally prosecuted and

convicted for shortage of wheat stock.

[5] That apart the Courts below rightly have drawn an adverse

inference against the appellants-defendants for withholding the best piece of

evidence in the form of gate pass.

[6] Findings no merits in the present appeals, the same are ordered

RAJNEESH SHARMA

2026.02.03 15:31 to be dismissed.

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

RSA-3024-2025 (O&M) &

RSA-3061-2025 (O&M)

[7] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands

disposed off.

[8] Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

(PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

29.01.2026

‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA

2026.02.03 15:31

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document