JUDGMENT Mrs. Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.01.1993 passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1990 passed by the Trial Court. 2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the present suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondents i.e. Markfed Refined Oil and Allied Industries, Kapurthala etc. for restraining them from deducting the payment regarding item No.4.1 as mentioned in the schedule appended with the agreement (Ex.P1) executed between the parties. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellant was that he had been carrying on various jobs related to handling and re-handling of raw materials, finished products and packing materials etc. with the defendant-respondents on contract basis. The relevant contract period was 1987-1988. It was further averred that he had carried out various jobs of Markfed regarding lifting of bags of Markfed Refined Oil and Allied Industries, Kapurthala and it had agreed to make payments on the basis of the Schedule appended with the agreement. The defendant-respondents refused to make payments for item No.4.1, however, the remaining payments were made. Hence, the present suit. The defendant-respondents denied the allegations and contested the suit. Besides the preliminary objections, on merits it was admitted that the contractor i.e. the plaintiff-appellant had been carrying on contract work but stated that rates of contract of labourer were wrong. It was further stated that the plaintiff-appellant had made a request in writing on 22.10.1986 praying for payment of labour charges at the enhanced rate and the Committee decided that the contractor should be paid 37 paise per bag against his request of 55 paise on 22.10.1986 as Clause 4.1 merged in Clause 4.6. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Trial Court : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether notice under section 79 of Cooperative Societies Act is required to be served on the defendant before filing the suit ? If so its effect ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the proper court fee is not fixed ? OPD 5 Relief. 4. The Trial decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.1990. If so its effect ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the proper court fee is not fixed ? OPD 5 Relief. 4. The Trial decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.1990. It is to be noted that the onus of issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 was cast upon the defendant-respondents who chose not to press issue Nos.2, 3 and 4 before the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-respondents which appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.1993. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that the plaintiff-appellant had been doing contract work for the defendant-respondents and for the year 1987-88 an agreement was entered into on 01.11.1987. As per Clause 1, the rates were to be paid as per the Schedule which formed part of the agreement. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that as per Clause 4.1, Rs.8/- were to be paid per 100 bags and as per Clause 4.6, Rs.37/- were to be paid per 100 bags. It is further the contention that though the other payments were made however it was the stand taken by the defendant-respondents that Clause 4.1 merged in Clause 4.6 and hence they refused to make the payments qua Clause 4.1. The learned counsel would further contend that there was no notice which was ever served upon the plaintiff-appellant intimating to him that Clause 4.1 had merged in Clause 4.6 nor was there any amendment to the Schedule. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the plaintiff-appellant was orally conveyed that the said amount would not be paid under Clause 4.1 and the same had merged in Clause 4.6. However, in the written statement it was clearly stated that payments under Clause 4.1 had not been made since the same stood merged in Clause 4.6. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents would contend that Clauses 4.1 and 4.6 were overlapping and hence Clause 4.1 merged in Clause 4.6 and a total amount of Rs.37/- per 100 bags was paid to the plaintiff-appellant. The payment of Rs.8/- per 100 bags as stated in Clause 4.1 would be extra payment and hence the same was not made. The payment of Rs.8/- per 100 bags as stated in Clause 4.1 would be extra payment and hence the same was not made. The learned counsel would further contend that notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 was not served and proper court fee was also not appended as per the claim. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the present case the plaintiff-appellant had been doing contractual work for the defendant-respondents and for the year 1987-88 a fresh agreement was entered into on 01.11.1987. Clause 1 of the agreement reads as under : "1. The contractor shall carryout the various jobs of carriage, handling and re-handling of packing materials, raw materials and finished products as detailed in the annexure at 28% (twenty eight percent) above the scheduled rates given against each item" A Schedule (Ex.P2) was appended with the agreement where basic rates schedule was mentioned against each item. Clauses 4.1 and 4.6 read as under: "4.1 Lifting of bags of cake, coarse graine, wheat 8-00 bran from stacks to feeding point. XXX XXX XXX 4.6 Loading of materials from various godowns and Unloading cattle feed plants' feeding point after 100% weighment at our factory weighbridge through the contractor own truck/trolley 37-00" 9. It is an admitted case of the parties that no notice was ever served upon the plaintiff-appellant informing him of any amendment in the contract or in the Schedule of payment. Rather, the defendant-respondents chose not to make payment and it was orally conveyed to the plaintiff-appellant that no payment would be made under Clause 4.1 as the same stood merged in Clause 4.6. In the absence of any amendment to the agreement or to the Schedule which forms part of the agreement, the Clauses could not have been changed unilaterally by the defendant-respondents and that too verbally. The agreement which was signed by both the parties stood concluded and could only be amended with the consent of both the parties. In view thereof, the defendant-respondents could not have changed the conditions of the contract unilaterally. 10. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has contended that neither notice was served under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 nor proper court fee was appended. In view thereof, the defendant-respondents could not have changed the conditions of the contract unilaterally. 10. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has contended that neither notice was served under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 nor proper court fee was appended. A perusal of the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 16.11.1990 reveals that neither issue No.2 "Whether notice under section 79 of Cooperative Societies Act is required to be served on the defendant before filing the suit ? If so its effect ? OPD" was pressed nor issue Nos.3 and 4 were pressed which read as under : "3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the proper court fee is not fixed? OPD" 11. A perusal of the grounds of appeal filed before the First Appellate Court also reveals that the said argument that no notice was issued under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 or that no proper court fee was appended was never raised by the defendant-respondents. Even before the First Appellate Court, no arguments have been raised by the counsel for the defendant-respondents qua the issue Nos.2 to 4. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the issues while deciding the appeal. Having chosen to not press the issue Nos.2 to 4 before the Trial Court and in the absence of any challenge having been laid to the issues before the before the First Appellate Court, it is incomprehensible as to how the First Appellate Court without there being any challenge to the findings on issue Nos.2 to 4 and without any arguments being addressed by the parties has reversed the findings. 12. As per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi (dead) through LR's & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. [ 2016 (6) SCC 157 ] there is no requirement for framing of substantial questions of law. 13. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 07.01.1993 passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court dated 16.11.1990 is restored. The amount, if any, paid pursuant to the order dated 04.08.1993 be refunded by the defendant-respondents. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.