RSA No. 3150 of 2014 -1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

RSA No. 3150 of 2014

Date of Decision: 10.10.2014

Harbhajan Singh

---Appellant

Versus

M/s Jai Kishan Dass Sumer Chand and another

---Respondents

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

***

Present:-

Mr. J.S.Saneta, Advocate

For the appellant

***

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see

the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

REKHA MITTAL, J.

The present regular second appeal has been directed against the

judgment and decree dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Additional District

Judge, Kurukshetra, accepting the appeal of the respondents-defendants

and thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2011 passed by

the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pehowa.

Harbhajan Singh, the appellant-plaintiff filed suit for rendition

of accounts on the premise that he was customer of the defendants and used

RSA No. 3150 of 2014 -2-

to sell his agricultural produce through them. He sold his khariff crop of

2003 and Rabi crop of 2004 to the defendants worth Rs. 9,00,000/- and the

defendants used to give kachi parchi in respect of sale of agricultural

produce on the pretext that regular ‘J’ form would be issued later after

getting it from the office of the Market Committee, Pehowa. The

defendants issued only 5 ‘J’ forms and failed to issue ‘J’ forms in respect of

kachi parchis. They also failed to give credit of sale of agricultural

produce detailed in the kachi parchis and make payment of the said amount

to the plaintiff.

The learned trial court accepted plea of the plaintiff, passed a

preliminary decree for rendition of accounts directing the defendants to

render the accounts within two months.

The matter was carried in appeal by M/s Jain Kishan Dass

Sumer Chand through its proprietor Sh. Sumer Chand which was allowed

by the first appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated

17.10.2013.

Counsel for the appellant contends that the first appellate court

committed a serious error by accepting the appeal and setting aside the

judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It is argued that as the

respondent-firm and its proprietor failed to account for the sale of

agricultural produce, therefore, the respondents are liable to render the

account and pay outsanding amount.

I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

The learned first appellate court has relied upon the judgment

passed by this Court in Bhim Singh vs. M/s Mewa Singh and Company,

RSA No. 3150 of 2014 -3-

2011(2)PLR 393 to hold that the defendants are not liable to render

accounts to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not filed suit for recovery of

the amount outstanding towards sale of his produce. In Bhim Singh’s case

(supra), a similar controversy was raised in the regular second appeal

preferred by appellant Bhim Singh, who filed the suit for rendition of

accounts against his commission agent, succeeded in the trial court but non-

suited by the first appellant court. A relevant extract from para Nos. 7 and 8

of the judgment reads as follows:-

“7. However, it has to be seen whether there was any duty cast

on defendants no. 1 to 3 to render accounts to the plaintiff. The

answer to this question has to be in the negative. There was no

fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to

3, making defendants No. 1 to 3 liable to render the accounts

to the plaintiff. Merely because plaintiff was selling his crop

through defendants No. 1 to 3 would not make defendants no. 1

to 3 liable to render any accounts to the plaintiff. On the

contrary, Form-