M/S Ambari Ram Bal Krishan vs Sadhu Singh on 7 July, 2009

RSA No.3407 of 2008(O&M)                            -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH.


                               RSA No.3407 of 2008(O&M)
                               Date of Decision: 07.07.2009


M/s Ambari Ram Bal Krishan
                                                            ...Appellant

                                 VERSUS

Sadhu Singh
                                                            ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:    Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate
            for the appellant.

            None for the respondent.

                   ***

AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the

Courts below decreeing the recovery suit of the respondent. The following

substantial questions of law have been proposed:-

1. “Whether the judgment passed by the Hon’ble First

Appellate Court can be said to be in conformity with

the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 CPC?

2. Whether it was imperative on the first appellate court

to deal with the grounds of appeal taken for it by the

appellant-defendant before disposing of the appeal by

a non-speaking judgment and giving a general

agreement only with the findings of the learned Lower

Court?

RSA No.3407 of 2008(O&M) -2-

3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present

case when Dalbara Singh (lawful attorney of plaintiff

Sadhu Singh) has not been examined by Sadhu Singh,

the case set up by Sadhu Singh can be accepted, more

so keeping in view the un-controverted evidence of

the defence witnesses in view of Section 137 of the

Indian Evidence Act?

4. Whether it was imperative upon Sadhu Singh to

produce Dalbara Singh to establish the fact that the

produce of crop was sold through Dalbara Singh,

more so particularly when there was no pleading on

that account in the entire plaint?

5. Whether in view of AIR 1985 SC 736 it was

imperative upon the learned First Appellate Court to

give its judgment on all the issues?

6. Whether despite the fact that the produce of the crops

was sold through DW1, DW2, DW3 and DW5, the

payment received by them, still it can be said that they

were not the authorized representatives of the

plaintiff, ignoring the concept of implied authority?”

It is seen that questions No.1, 2 and 5 are basically the same

question stated in different forms.

As regards questions No.3, 4 and 6, it would be necessary to set

out the admitted facts and evidence emerging from this appeal. The

plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for recovery of money of the crops which
RSA No.3407 of 2008(O&M) -3-

were sold through the appellant. The case of the appellant is that they had

paid the money to his relatives particularly to his father-in-law and four

brothers-in-law. It is, however, not disputed that there was no authority

issued by the plaintiff-respondent in favour of these persons.

In these circumstances, questions No.3, 4 and 6 do not arise.

As regards questions No.1, 2 and 5, suffice it to say that in view of narrow

controversy between the parties no fault can be found in the judgment of the

learned Lower Appellate Court and consequently this appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

As the main case since has been disposed of therefore all the

pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of.

                                                   ( AJAY TEWARI )
July 07, 2009                                           JUDGE
ashish