R. S. A. No. 811 of 2010

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R. S. A. No. 811 of 2010

Date of Decision : January 24, 2011

Bhim Singh

....

Appellant

Vs.

M/s Mewa Singh and Company,

Commission Agents, Market Bhawanigarh,

District Sangrur and others

....

Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * *

Present :

Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate

for the appellant.

* * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

Plaintiff Bhim Singh, who succeeded in the trial court, but has

been non-suited by the first appellate court, has filed the instant second

appeal.

Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he and his brother used to

jointly sell their crop at the shop of defendant no.1 – Commission Agent, of

which defendants no. 2 and 3 are partners. Plaintiff and his brother sold

their crops jointly till 1999 and thereafter, separately. Since Harri 1995 till

Harri 2001 crops, they used to take fertilizers, oil and and insecticides etc.

R. S. A. No. 811 of 2010

2

from defendants no.1 to 3. On these allegations, the plaintiff filed suit for

rendition of accounts since Kharif 1995 to Kharif 2001 crops sold by the

plaintiff through defendants no.1 to 3. Plaintiff also claimed permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from preparing forged and false

documents on blank and printed papers, on which defendants have obtained

signatures of plaintiff and account books, on which defendants have

obtained signatures of plaintiff and restraining the defendants from effecting

any recovery from the plaintiff on the basis thereof and from interfering in

sale of crop by the plaintiff through some other Commission Agent and

from taking forcible possession of plaintiff's paddy crop.

Defendants, in their written statement, admitted that plaintiff

and his brother Jarnail Singh used to sell their crops through defendant no.1

since 20.04.1995 till 1998-99 jointly and the account was in the name of

plaintiff Bhim Singh. Thereafter, both the brothers sold their crop

separately in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 through their separate accounts.

Lastly, they sold their Rabi (Harri) 2001 crop. However, nothing remained

due to the plaintiff and his brother from defendant no.1. On the contrary,

plaintiff borrowed ₹ 6,00,000/- from defendant no.1 on 10.05.2001 and

executed pronote and receipt for the same, whereas plaintiff's brother Jarnail

Singh borrowed ₹ 7,25,000/- on 29.10.2001 from defendant no.1 and

executed pronote and receipt for the same. Accounts of crops sold by the

R. S. A. No. 811 of 2010

3

plaintiff and his brother have already been settled. Moreover, defendants

no.1 to 3 never refused to settle their accounts. Plaintiff and his brother

themselves are not ready to settle the accounts. Other plaint allegations were

broadly controverted. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur,

vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit

holding him entitled to rendition of accounts for the period from Harri

1995 to Harri 2001 from defendants no.1 to 3 and preliminary decree to this

effect was passed. However, first appeal preferred by defendants no. 1 to 3

has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide

judgment and decree dated 01.04.2009 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff

stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant

second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

case file.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that

the lower appellate court has misread the testimony of the plaintiff to the

effect that he has settled his accounts with defendants no.1 to 3 till the year

1999 because in fact, plaintiff was referring to said settlement of accounts

with his own brother and not with defendants no.1 to 3. Relevant part of

statement of plaintiff, as read by learned counsel f