Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1976 (PNJ)

Malhi Commission Agents v. Harbans Kaur

2006-05-08

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment 1. The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for recovery of the sale consideration of agricultural produce sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, was decreed. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had sold specified quantity of wheat on 24.4.1998, 29.4.1998 and 2.5.1998 but the defendant has not paid price thereof. The sale of wheat was sought to be proved from the entries in the record of the Market Committee. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has sold the agricultural produce to the defendant and the defendant has not paid for the same. Reliance is placed upon the entry of the register Exhibit PX and Exhibit PZ proved by PW2-Sham Sunder, an employee of the Market Committee in respect of the transactions effected between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, both the Courts granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the documents Exhibit PX and PZ are not signed either by the plaintiff or by the defendant and, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration. 4. However, the said argument is not tenable in law. The plaintiff has relied upon such documents as corroborative evidence by virtue of being a record maintained by the Market Committee in respect of transactions effected in regular course by the Market Committee. The said records being maintained in the regular course of business are relevant to determine the rights of the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ramnik vallabhdas Madhvani and others Vs. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1084, to contend that the interest exceeding 6% p. a. could not have been granted by the learned Civil Court. However, the principle laid down in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, in as much as the Civil Suit in the said case was filed prior to the amendment of the Sec.34 of the Code of Civil procedure, in the year 1977. However, the principle laid down in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, in as much as the Civil Suit in the said case was filed prior to the amendment of the Sec.34 of the Code of Civil procedure, in the year 1977. The HON BLE Supreme Court in para No.15 of the judgment has found that the award of interest is in three stages; first interest prior to the date of institution of suit, the second stage is from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and the third stage from the date of decree till the realization of the decretal amount. The Court found that Sec.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not say anything about the first stage, whereas in respect of second stage, the interest awarded should be as considered reasonable by the Court and in respect of 3rd stage, it cannot be more than 6% per annum. That was a situation prior to the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in 1977. In the present case, the learned trial Court has granted interest @ 12% p. a. till the date of filing of the suit. In respect of such interest, Sec.34 Code of Civil procedure, does not make any provision. Therefore, reliance by the learned counsel for the appellant on the said judgment, is misconceived. 6. The findings of both the Courts below are firm findings of fact and such findings are sought to be disputed by reappraisal of evidence. In the present regular second appeal, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.