Punjab State Civil Supplies vs Amrik Singh on 21 July, 2009

R.S.A.No.3732 of 2008                                          1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                R.S.A.No.3732 of 2008

                                Date of Decision : 21.07.2009

Punjab State Civil Supplies                          ...Appellants
Corp. Ltd. (PUNSUP) and Anr.

                                Versus

Amrik Singh                                          ...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: Mr. J.K.Gurna, Advocate,
         for the appellants.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the

judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for

recovery of Rs.3,55,131.26 as principal and Rs.1,54,469/- as interest, was

dismissed.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant had taken over the

charge as Inspector Incharge of PUNSUP Centre Bareta on 22.2.1986

from Jangir Singh, Inspector Incharge Bareta and Sukhjit Singh, P.D.C.

Double Lock Incharge Bareta. He worked as such w.e.f. 4.4.1985 to

20.9.1985 under the supervision of District Manager, PUNSUP,

Bathinda. The defendant was alleged to be responsible for the safe

custody of the goods. Subsequently, Jagjiwan Singh, Sub Inspector was

posted as Incharge of PUNSUP, Bareta Centre. At the time of delivery of

charge, it was found that 1666 bags of wheat were damaged and unfit for

human consumption. Such wheat stock was disposed of in public auction
R.S.A.No.3732 of 2008 2

in November 1988. The plaintiffs suffered a loss in the sale of said wheat

stock, which is sought to be recovered from the defendant in the present

suit.

Both the Courts have dismissed the suit holding the same to be

barred by limitation. It has been found that the shortage of goods and

damage has come to the notice of the plaintiffs in the year 1985, whereas

the suit has been filed in April 1991 and, therefore, it is barred by

limitation.

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that

the cause of action would arise to the plaintiffs when the goods were

disposed of and not when the same were stacked in the godowns of the

plaintiffs. It is a question of fact as to when the cause of action would

arise to the plaintiffs. It has been found from a perusal of the record of

the Committee for handing over charge to Jagjiwan Singh, Ex.PW2/B,

that the shortage of goods and the damage had come to the notice of the

plaintiffs in the year 1985. Therefore, the cause of action has been rightly

found to have arisen to the plaintiffs in the year 1985, which is distinct

from the sale of damaged goods.

Finding of fact recorded is sought to be disputed in the present

second appeal. It is question of fact as to when cause of action arises to

the plaintiffs.

In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question

of law arises for consideration of this Court.

Dismissed.

21.7.2009                                         (HEMANT GUPTA)
Vimal                                                 JUDGE