RSA No. 3578 of 2012 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : 13.09.2012

(1) RSA No. 3578 of 2012 (O&M)

M/s Sushil Kumar Saravjeet Singh

Commission Agent and another

....Appellants

V/s

Harminder Singh & anr.

....Respondents

(2) RSA No. 3263 of 2012 (O&M)

M/s Sushil Kumar Saravjeet Singh

Commission Agent

....Appellant

V/s

Harminder Singh

....Respondent

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellants.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

C.M. No. 9553-C-12

This is an application for condonation of 8 days delay in

filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is

allowed. Delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA No. 3578 of 2012

This order shall dispose of two appeals preferred by

appellant aggrieved by judgments of the courts below.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there

has been a complete mis-appreciation of evidence by the courts

below. While granting relief to respondent-Harminder Singh, the

RSA No. 3578 of 2012 (O&M)

2

court went beyond the pleadings and suit for rendition of account

has been decreed against the defendant-appellants. Thus, judgment

and decree passed by the courts below deserve to be set-aside. He

has placed reliance on judgment of this court reported as

Improvement Trust, Patiala through its Administrator/Chairman vs.

Jaswinder Kaur & ors. 2010(4) Civil Court Cases, 534.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and

gone through the judgments of the courts below.

Brief factual background of the case is that plaintiff-

Harminder Singh filed a suit against firm M/s Sushil Kumar

Saravjeet Singh Commission Agent for rendition of account. He

alleged in the plaint that defendant-firm had not been fair with him

in dealings. He being a farmer used to sell his agricultural produce

to defendant-firm which is a commission agency. Therefore, in this

regard he had opened an account with the said firm. They used to

obtain his signatures/thumb impressions in the accounts books

(bahis) maintained by them. On 29.10.2001, he settled the

accounts. A sum of `23,428/- was found to be payable by him to

the defendant-firm which he paid and closed the account.

Thereafter, Harminder Singh neither sold any agricultural produce

to the commission agency nor borrowed any money. However,

defendant-firm gave a rough slip to him demanding an amount by

referring to old balance of `5,50,000/- and fresh accrual of

`21,000/-. As plaintiff felt harassed, he preferred instant suit for

rendition of accounts. Suit was contested by defendant-firm taking

the plea that Harminder Singh had not settled the accounts with the

defendant-firm. Thus, suit for rendition of accounts was not

RSA No. 3578 of 2012 (O&M)

3

maintainable. According to it, plaintiff’s brother Harnek Singh had

taken a loan from the defendant-firm with a promise to repay the

same on selling agricultural produce. Other pleas taken in the

plaint were denied. Suit was instituted by Harminder Singh on

17.07.2002. While proceedings were pending, a suit was filed by

defendant-firm against Harminder Singh claiming recovery of

`7,50,000/- which was advanced as loan. This suit was contested

by Harminder Singh denying all allegations. Both the suits were

clubbed by the trial court and disposed of together. On the basis of

evidence lead by Harminder Singh, it was held that he was entitled

to rendition of accounts pertaining to `2,96,844/-. Suit filed by M/s

Sushil Kumar Saravjeet Singh Commission Agency for recovery of

`7,50,000/- was, however, dismissed. It was also found that the

commission agency had concealed material facts. In the evidence

led before the lower court, it was found that wheat, paddy and

cotton worth `5,63,219/- was sold by plaintiff through the agency of

M/s Sushil Kumar