Ravi Dutt Jhangra Vs Himachal Cement Pvt.Ltd.
Case Details
 Case Type | Civil Appeal |
 Registration Number | 200002/2010 |
 Filing Date | 02-12-2009 |
 Registration Date | 01-01-2010 |
 First Hearing Date | 26th November 2011 |
 Decision Date | 29th September 2012 |
 Case Status | Case Disposed |
 Court Number and Judge | 2-Additional District And Sessions Judge; |
 Nature of Disposal | Contested--Dismised With Cost; |
Petitioners & Respondents
Petitioner Ravi Dutt Jhangra, ;
;
Respondent NameHimachal Cement Pvt.Ltd.;
Order Details
Order Details
Order not found.
Final Order Judgement
.svg){kind=icon} Order Date | 29-09-2012  |
| In the Court of Shri V In the Court of Shri Rattan Singh Thakur, Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. Trial Court’s Civil Suit No. : 5/1 of 2003. -0- Civil Appeal No. : 2-N/13 of 2010. Date of Institution : 2-12-2009. Date of Decision : 29-9-2012. Shri Ravi Dutt Jhangra, Proprietor of M/S Ravi Mill Store, Stockist of Machinary Hardwar, Electric Goods and Commission agent, Patiala Road Rajpura, Punjab,aged 52 years. ....Appellant. Versus 1. Himachal Cement Pvt. Ltd. Patti Natha Singh, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., through Shri J. L. Dhiman Officer of the Company authorized by the Board of Directors of the Company. … respondent. 2. Shri Deepak Kumar Sood, Proprietor of Deepak Sood and Sons, Noorpur, H.P. ...Proforma-respondent. Civil Appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment & decree dated 30-9-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Civil suit No.5/1 of 2003 titled as Himachal Cement Private Limited vs. Ravi Dutt Jhangra and another. For Appellant : Sh. M.K.Jain, Ld. Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Sh. H.S.Shah, Ld. Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Sh. Mohd.Iqbal, Ld. Advocate. Judgment. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-9-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. vide which suit preferred by respondent for recovery of Rs.99,213/- was decreed in favour of respondent and against appellant and proforma respondent along with contractual interest from 1- 1-12-2002 till realization of total decretal amount. 2. Averments of the respondent before the learned lower Court were that respondent is a private Limited company registered and copy of certificate of incorporation was enclosed and Sh. J. L. Dhiman is the authorized Officer to file the suit on behalf of the company. Appellant and proforma respondent were dealing with respondent No.1 since 19-7-2001 and used to purchase the cement on cash and credit basis. The details of the cement purchased, bills, dates, quantity of cement and freight charges comes out to Rs.3,45,000/-. Appellant and proforma respondent on different dates paid the amount, the details of which given under para No.5 of the plaint comes out to Rs. 2,64,200/-. After its adjustment now an amount of Rs.80,800/- is due to respondent from appellant and proforma respondent, beside the contractual rate of interest of Rs.18,413/-. Hence, the said amount was due from appellant and proforma respondent to respondent No.1. A cheque was issued by the appellant for Rs.40,000/- in favour of respondent, but such cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Hence, on these averments a decree of Rs.99,213/- along with contractual rate of interest calculated up to 30-11-2002 along with future interest was prayed for. 2 3. Appellant and proforma respondent had contested the suit and and filed joint written statement, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of suit being not maintainable; no firm in existence of Deepak Sood and Sons Noorpur, H.P.; bad for mis-joinder; no cause of action and appellant received the cement vide bill Nos. 314, 362, 398, 436, 453 and 527 and the cement of other bills were not received. Proforma respondent never purchased the cement. Appellant purchased the cement at Rajpura. All these bills, for which entire payment was made except Rs.2,20,000/-. Appellant never made any order for the purchase of cement. After payment and adjustment Rs.220/- is yet to be paid by the appellant to respondent. The proforma respondent was simply a salesman of appellant at Rajpura. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended. 4. The respondent had filed replication to the written statement, the averments as contained in the plaint were reiterated. 5. Per pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 19-11-2003, the following issues were framed by the learned lower Court:- 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.99,213/- as prayed for? …OPP 2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? …OPD 3) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action and parties? …OPD 3 4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant No.2? …OPD 5) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? ...OPD 6) Relief. 6. Thereafter the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the learned Court below had returned the findings under issue No. 1 in affirmative, while under remaining issue Nos. 2 to 5 in negative and proceeded to decree the suit in the manner aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, the appellant had preferred the appeal on the grounds that proper appreciation of law and evidence was not done. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents and record of the learned lower Court was also requisitioned. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the evidence on record. 10. From the contentions raised, the following points emerges for determination:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree contains errors on point of law, facts and procedure and is liable to be set aside? 4 2. Relief? 11. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, while discussing the points for determination, my findings on the same are as under:- Point No.1 : No. Relief : Appeal dismissed with costs and impugned judgment and decree up held per operative portion of the judgment. 12. Reasons in support of the above findings are as under:- Point No.1:- 13. It is the admitted case that parties had dealing of cement with each other. The appellant and respondent No.2 had claimed that amount had been paid of the cement received of few bills except for Rs.220/-. 14. Respondent had examined J.L. Dhiman as PW1 tendered and proved certificate of incorporation Ext.P1 and copy of resolution vide which J.L. Dhiman was authorized to file the suit Ext.P2. Per his deposition vide bills Ext.P1 to Ext.P33 the cement as mentioned in the bills were supplied to appellant and proforma respondent. The bills are used to be issued in favour of appellant and Deepak Sood. However, delivery used to be made at Rajpura. It is also admitted that proforma respondent was his 5 salesman. It is the case of PW1 that after adjustment now an amount of Rs.80,800/- is due to respondent from appellant and proforma respondent, beside the contractual rate of interest of Rs.18,413/- total comes out to Rs.99,213/- on the date of suit. Bills Ext.P1 to Ext.P33 excluding of freight charges. Its perusal shows that few of the bills were issued in the name of appellant and remaining in the name of proforma respondent. These facts are clear from the bills and other documents referred to above placed on file. 15. Respondent had also examined PW3 Satish Gupta, Advocate. He also supported the claim of respondent. Their testimonies further corroborated with the deposition of PW4 Ganpat Singh, Accountant. As per his claim he knows appellant and proforma respondent and they had purchased the cement from respondent's Company w.e.f. 19-7-2001 to 27-12-2001. Bills used to be issued by J.L. Dhiman excluding freight charges. Per statement of account Ext.PW4/a prepared by PW4 the amount of Rs.3,45,000/ shown due from the appellant and proforma respondent the payment of the cement. It also reflects that balance amount of Rs.80,800/- besides contractual rate of interest of Rs.18,413/- is due to respondent from appellant and proforma respondent. These are the books kept in the company in ordinary course of business and which have been got exhibited and proved on record. 16. Respondent had also examined PW5 Lachman 6 Singh driver of Himachal Cement Private Limited and per his deposition he used to drop the cement as per receipts of appellant and proforma respondent at Rajpura. He had also proved receipts Ext.PW5/A, Ext.PW5/B, Ext.PW5/C, Ext.PW5/D, Ext.PW5/E and Ext.PW5/F respectively. Bill Ext.P2 and receipt Ext.PW5/G. Respondent had also examined Ram Saroop, Excise & Taxation inspector as PW6. He has also proved forms Ext.PW6/A to Ext.PW6/K of different dates, which shows that it had crossed from the barrier through transport. Thus, the official had also supported the said fact of cement had crossed the barrier as claimed by respondent. 17. Let it be mentioned here that performa respondent had not challenged the judgment and decree by way of filing an appeal, thereby he had accepted the judgment and decree. It be also noticed here that proforma respondent had not appeared in the witness box to rebut the evidence led on behalf of respondent. Meaning thereby he had nothing to say qua claim preferred by respondent. 18. DW1 is Ravi Dutt Jhangra, proprietor of appellant. He could not face the test of cross-examination and his admission is that Deepak Sood was his sales man from 2001 to 2003. It is also his admission he runs the business of cement, iron etc since 12-2-1985. He further admitted that whether bill Ext.P1 is correct or not. He could say after going through the record, but he had not seen record. Bills Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 also admitted by 7 him. There are other documents which had been admitted by the appellant. He further admitted that Ext.P5 bears his signature. It is also his admitted case that proforma respondent Deepak Sood had also appended his signatures on Ext.PW5/A of having received 250 bags of cement. He had also not denied the suggestion that vide bill Ext.PW5/D Deepak Soot had received 250 bags of cement. He further admitted his signature on Ext.PW5/G. He had denied the suggestion that Deepak Sood had appended his signatures on Ext.PW5/E of having received 250 bags of cement. He further admitted that Deepak Sood used to receive the cement. Some of the bills are also in the name of Deepak Sood. 19. DW2 is Inder Raj, who had maintained the entries of account of appellant, copy of which is Ext.DW1/A. Per him he has feeded the computer as per details shown to him. He was not shown the bill Ext.DW1/A. 20. It also could not be said that the suit is bad for mis- joinder of cause of action and parties, as admittedly Deepak Sood had also received cement bags. Though the bills were issued of Nurpur, but the cement used to be received at Rajpura. It is also the case that he was a salesman of the appellant. He has not challenged the judgment and decree. Per record the cement was supplied form District Sirmaur i.e; Tehsil Paonta Sahib, as such, the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court. 8 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion and evidence on record, I find no reasons to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower court. Accordingly, this, point, is answered in negative. RELIEF. 22. In the light of the aforesaid findings under Point No.1, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs. The impugned judgment and decree dated 30-9-2012 passed by the learned Court below is affirmed. The findings of the learned lower court under all issues are hereby affirmed. A decree in appeal be drawn up. 23. The record of the learned trial court along with copy of this judgment be returned and that of appeal proceedings after due completion be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open Court. September, 29, 2012. Sd/- (Rattan Singh Thakur) Addl. District Judge, ‘S’ Sirmaur District at Nahan,H.P. 9 10 Trial Court’s Civil Suit No. : 5/1 of 2003. Civil Appeal No. : 2-N/13 of 2010. Date of Institution : 2-12-2009. Versus Judgment. |
Frequently Asked Questions
The Petitioner in case Ravi Dutt Jhangra vs Himachal Cement Pvt.Ltd. is Ravi Dutt Jhangra.
The Respondent in case Ravi Dutt Jhangra vs Himachal Cement Pvt.Ltd. is Himachal Cement Pvt.Ltd..
The case against Himachal Cement Pvt.Ltd.was filed on 02-12-2009 by Ravi Dutt Jhangra.
The status of case Ravi Dutt Jhangra against Himachal Cement Pvt.Ltd. is Case Disposed.