JUDGMENT Arun Monga, J. (Oral) For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court. 2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, defendant No.1 (appellant herein) are in second appeal before this Court assailing trial Court judgment and decree dated 22.02.2019, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.02.2022. 3. Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Courts below are that plaintiff No.1 is the sole proprietorship concern and plaintiff No.2 is its sole proprietor. Defendant No.1 is limited company and defendant Nos.2 to 4 on behalf of defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs at Mandi Gobindgarh and showed their intention to sell old used sugar machinery scrap and accordingly the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the same and thereafter for purchase of the material the plaintiffs deposited an amount of Rs.18,10,000/- in advance in the account of defendant No.1 through RTGS i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.08.2011, Rs.4,10,000/- on 01.10.2011 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 07.10.2011 from their bank account i.e. Bank of Maharashtra Branch Mandi Gobindgarh. It was further averred that defendants sent material to plaintiffs only vide Bill No.110061 dated 01.10.2011 amounting to Rs.3,53,654.40/- but thereafter the defendants never sent any material to the plaintiffs. Even the plaintiffs approached the defendants several times to send material of the remaining amount but all in vain. After deducting the amount of bill, Rs.14,56,345.60/- was still due and lying deposited with the defendants. It was further averred that the defendants were illegally and unlawfully withholding the said amount of the plaintiffs with them and as such the plaintiffs were entitled to claim interest @ 18% per annum from the defendants. Hence, the suit for recovery of Rs.22,20,927.20/- i.e. principal plus interest amount. 4. Upon notice, defendants-appellants appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim, taking preliminary objections of maintainability of suit being frivolous, baseless, without any cause of action, no locus standi, misjoinder & non-joinder of parties, time barred and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. Defendants also denied the purchase of any material by the plaintiffs from them. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed: 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.22,20,927.20/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Defendants also denied the purchase of any material by the plaintiffs from them. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed: 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.22,20,927.20/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands, if so its effect?OPD 4. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit?OPD 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decided suit?OPD 6. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPD 7. Whether suit is time barred?OPD 8. Whether suit is hit by the provisions of Specific Relief Act? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of CPC and is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC? 10. Relief. 6. The parties to the suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid. 7. On appraisal of evidence vis-a-vis pleadings, all issues were decided in favour of plaintiffs and consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed for recovery of Rs.11,34,075/- with proportionate costs against defendant No.1 only, whereas suit against defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed. Plaintiffs were also held entitled to recover interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 07.10.2011 to 10.09.2014 and pendente-lite future interest @ 6% per annum till realization of amount from defendant No.1 only. 8. Aggrieved, defendant No.1-appellant preferred first appeal which was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. 9. Learned First Appellate Court below dismissed the appeal, resulting in instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 10. In its judgment, learned First Appellate Court, inter alia, observed, as under: "xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 17. Now as per the case of plaintiffs/respondents, they deposited amount of Rs. 18,10,000/- in the account of defendant No.1 through RTGS on different dates for purchase of machinery scrap from appellant/ defendant but appellant/defendant sent the material to plaintiffs/respondents only for Rs.3,53,654.40 as per bill Ex.P2 and not for remaining amount, for which recovery suit has been filed, which is denied by the appellant/defendant on the ground that there was no direct dealing between plaintiffs/respondents and appellant/defendant company. The testimony of PW2 Dharminder Singh clerk from Maharashtra bank branch Mandi Gobindgarh assume significance in this regard, as he brought the official record and deposed regarding amount of Rs.18,10,000/- deposited by the plaintiffs/respondents in favour of appellant/defendant company through RTGS and the relevant documents are Ex.P13 to Ex.P18. This fact abundently makes clear and established that actually there was transaction between plaintiffs/respondents and appellant/defendant company, vide which plaintiffs/respondents deposited amount specifically with appellant/ defendant company and obviously, it was no lending or borrowing but was particularly for business dealing i.e. for purchase of machinery scrap by plaintiffs/respondents from appellant/defendant company and which absolutely rule out the plea of appellant/defendant company that there was no dealing between plaintiffs/respondents and defendant/appellant. Even DW1 Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal in his cross examination admitted the bill Ex.P2 issued by appellant/defendant company and though he voluntarily further stated that it was regarding M/s Narayani Enterprises but this assertion has not been proved by appellant/defendant. This witness also admitted in his cross examination regarding delivery note Ex.P9, which was issued by the appellant/defendant company in favour of plaintiffs/respondents, which is dated 12.09.2014 regarding supply of goods and which admittedly was issued after filing of the suit by plaintiffs/respondents and which again goes to establish the business link between plaintiffs/respondents and the appellant/defendant company, thrashing the plea taken by appellant/defendant company that there was no direct link between plaintiffs/respondents and defendant/appellant company. The delivery note Ex.P9 further established that appellant/defendant company even after supply of some material, is still under liability towards plaintiffs/respondents for the alleged civil wrong committed by it. 18. As regards the document Ex.D5, which is letter written by M/s Sagar Smriti to appellant/defendant, the same does not establish that said document has any connection with the transaction in dispute between plaintiffs/respondents and defendant/appellant in respect of which instant suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and which might have been sent regarding some other transaction of the parties involved therein. 19. The documents fully proved on record by the plaintiffs/ respondents as referred above, firmly established to the hilt that actually there was business dealing between plaintiffs/respondents and defendant/appellant and the dealings with M/s Narayani Enterprises or M/s Sagar Smriti having any connection with the matter in dispute, has not been established convincingly by the appellant/defendant company. 19. The documents fully proved on record by the plaintiffs/ respondents as referred above, firmly established to the hilt that actually there was business dealing between plaintiffs/respondents and defendant/appellant and the dealings with M/s Narayani Enterprises or M/s Sagar Smriti having any connection with the matter in dispute, has not been established convincingly by the appellant/defendant company. Appellant/ defendant company despite availing sufficient opportunities for leading their evidence never tried to summon any record or person from M/s Narayani Enterprises or M/s Sagar Smriti to prove their pleas and rather faced closure of their evidence by the court order and which again created considerable dent in their case. Besides, the civil court at Amloh was certainly within its legal jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as the cause of action accrued at Mandi Gobindgarh also on the basis of delivery note Ex.P9 and further on the basis of payments made by plaintiffs/respondents in the account of appellant/defendant through their bank at Mandi Gobidngarh and thus, learned lower court rightfully reached the conclusion while decreeing the suit of plaintiffs/respondents as per judgment and decree dated 22.02.2019 and in such situation, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant/defendant does not advance the case of appellant/defendant a wee bit. 20. Thus, as an upshot of my foregoing discussion and as a sequel thereto, it is held that no infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.02.2019 passed by the learned lower court, which calls for no interference and which is passed as per law and consequent upon which, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed with costs. Decree Sheet be prepared. Lower Court file along-with copy of this Judgment be sent back and the appeal file be consigned to the record room. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx" 11. Learned counsel for appellant strenuously argues that in view of the allegations of the appellant/defendant No.1 - company that there was close nexus between the plaintiffs and one M/s Sagar Samriti, the Ld. Trial Court ought to have made M/s Sagar Samriti a necessary party for proper adjudication of the case. 12. Having perused the judgment and decree passed by Ld. Trial Court as rightly upheld by Ld. Trial Court ought to have made M/s Sagar Samriti a necessary party for proper adjudication of the case. 12. Having perused the judgment and decree passed by Ld. Trial Court as rightly upheld by Ld. First Appellate Court, I am of the view that as it was incumbent upon the appellant/defendant No.1 itself to discharge onus of the allegations as well as to take steps qua objection of M/s Sagar Samriti not being a necessary party by way of filing an appropriate application. There was no bar under any provision of law for defendant No.1 to file appropriate application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to seek impleadment of a necessary party. Having not done so, it is too belated at this stage to make a bald statement that in the absence of necessary party that the judgment and decree passed by Ld. Trial Court is not sustainable. 13. Resultantly, no fault can be found with the findings rendered by learned trial Court as affirmed by learned First Appellate Court since the same were based on cogent evidence adduced by plaintiffs. 14. Having perused the impugned judgments, my considered opinion is that the submissions made before the Courts below were duly considered and repelled by recording sound and sufficient reasons consistent with record and the applicable law. I am inclined to agree with the same. There seems no substance in the submissions that the impugned judgments were passed in hot haste or that the same are based on conjectures and surmises. 15. To my mind, judgments under challenge have been rendered after due and correct appreciation of record including the evidence adduced by the parties. 16. In the premise, there seems no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts returned by the Courts below. No interference is thus called for to disturb the said concurrent findings. 17. Furthermore, no question of law, much less substantial one, a sine qua non for entertaining regular second appeal, is involved herein, for exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act read with section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 18. As an upshot of my preceding discussion, this appeal is dismissed, being bereft of any merit. Resultantly, both the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below are upheld. 19. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stands disposed of. 20. 18. As an upshot of my preceding discussion, this appeal is dismissed, being bereft of any merit. Resultantly, both the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below are upheld. 19. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stands disposed of. 20. No order as to costs.