Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs M/S Jai Kishan Dass Sumer Chand And Anr on 10 October, 2014
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
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-J of the crop sold is given by the Commission Agent to the farmer, who sells the crop. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to rendition of accounts from defendants no. 1 to 3. In addition, to the aforesaid, it has come in evidence that kind of produce and its rate and weight sold by the farmer is entered in the record of Market Committee. Consequently, the plaintiff could have relevant details from the Market Committee as well. In addition to it, the plaintiff himself has the said details by way of J-Forms given by the RSA No. 3150 of 2014 -4- Commission Agent-defendant no. 1 at the time of sale of produce.
8. There is another significant circumstance for non-suiting the plaintiff. The plaintiff has simply sought rendition of accounts, but has not sought recovery of amount, if any, due from the defendants no. 1 to 3 to the plaintiff. Without seeking recovery of the due amount, suit for mere rendition of accounts, would not be maintainable."
When the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined in the light of aforesaid observations, I find no error much less illegality in the findings of the learned first appellate court in allowing the appeal preferred by defendants-respondents and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 10.10.2014 paramjit