Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Singh Alias Jagdish Chander vs Firm M/S Jagdish Chander Ved Parkash on 2 December, 2008
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Regular Second Appeal No. 2601 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2601 of 2008
Date of Decision: 2.12.2008
Jagdish Singh alias Jagdish Chander
...Appellant
Versus
Firm M/s Jagdish Chander Ved Parkash
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate
for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
This is appellant/plaintiff's second appeal. A suit was filed for rendition of accounts by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant on the ground that he being an agriculturist used to cultivate 10 acres of land, out of which 8 acres is owned by him and rest was on lease and used to sell its agricultural produce to the respondent/defendant firm who was carrying on the business of Commission Agent. According to the plaint, respondent/defendant got signatures of the appellant/plaintiff on various documents on the assurance that they shall remain as security. The appellant/plaintiff sold his produce in the month of May 2001, October 2000, August 2000, details and description of the agricultural produce, their quantity and Regular Second Appeal No. 2601 of 2008 2 nature has been given in the plaint. It is stated that respondent/defendant firm had not given any amount to the appellant/plaintiff and his request that accounts be settled has not been paid heed too. Rather respondent/defendant threatened the appellant/plaintiff will be involved in a false case.
Notice of the suit was given to the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant appeared and filed a written statement; took preliminary objections that plaintiff has not affixed the Court fee ad valoremly ; the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to any relief; suit is not maintainable; appellant/plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands; he has no locus standi and suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further pleaded that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. On merits, it was submitted that the appellant/plaintiff was a Government servant and was cultivating the land on contractual basis. It was further pleaded that the respondent/defendant firm never got signatures from the plaintiff on blank papers and no quantity of agricultural produce, as stated in the plaint, has been sold to the defendant firm.
On conclusion of the pleadings, the following issues were formulated by learned trail Court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the rendition of account? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
3. Whether the proper ad valorem Court fee has not been affixed on the plaint, if so to Regular Second Appeal No. 2601 of 2008 3 what effect? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Relief.
Appellant/plaintiff himself appeared as PW.1 and examined Pritam Singh as PW.2. He relied upon J Forms Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
Respondent/defendant was represented by Shashi Dhawan, who appeared as DW.1, Vinod Bharti as DW.2 and Surender Kumar Chabra as DW.3. They also relied upon copy of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Ex.D1, photocopy of memo Ex.D2, photocopy of cheque Ex.D3, details of account as Ex.D4, photocopy of SARAL form Ex.D5, copy of account books as DW.3/1, copy of ledger record as Ex.DW.3/2, copy of memorandum as Ex.DW.3/3, and copies of two cheques marked as DX and DY, respectively.
Shashi Dhawan DW.1, partner of the firm deposed that appellant/plaintiff had taken a sum of Rs.3,04,434/- and issued the cheque to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant firm on 24.6.2002 which bounced due to which a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed and in order to avoid the proceedings, the present suit was filed.
Learned trial Court held that the appellant/plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW.1 and during the cross-examination he could not explain the specific date and year when he sold his crop at the respondent/defendant firm. Except the document Ex.P2 there is nothing Regular Second Appeal No. 2601 of 2008 4 on the file to prove the fact that the crop was sold at the defendant firm for the period as mentioned in the plaint. Further held that plaintiff has failed to prove from oral as well as documentary evidence, relationship between the plaintiff and defendant which is essential to seek the relief of rendition of accounts. After holding so, the suit was dismissed.
Plaintiff filed first appeal before the lower Appellate Court. Learned lower Appellate Court held that the version that appellant/plaintiff's signatures were taken on the blank papers by the defendant firm does not aspire any confidence. Relying upon K.C.Sakaria v. The Government of State of Kerala & Another 2006 (1) Civil Court Cases 602 (Supreme Court), it held that the right to invoke rendition of accounts is not made out in the present case and the appeal was dismissed.
I have heard Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellant/plaintiff. The counsel has been unable to assail the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. It was incumbent upon the appellant/plaintiff to prove sale of agricultural produce and establish his relationship with the respondent/defendant firm. A cheque has been issued by the appellant/plaintiff, which bounced and a threat of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the instance of the respondent/defendant firm was looming large at the head of appellant/plaintiff, to ward off the same the suit had been filed.
It has been submitted that J Forms issued in the name of father of the appellant/plaintiff and admission made by the respondent/defendant firm in a complaint Ex.D1 have been ignored by Regular Second Appeal No. 2601 of 2008 5 the two Courts below. No evidence has been examined to prove J Form, therefore, from oral evidence, two Courts below examined two versions and held that the version of appellant/plaintiff is not trustworthy and lacks credence.
In view of this finding of fact, no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal and, hence, the same is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 2, 2008 "DK"