High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation v. Dev Raj, Ex Ware House Manager - RSA-3719-2004  RD-P&H 685 (9 February 2006)
Case No. : C.M.No.9103-04-C of 2004 &
R.S.A.No.3719 of 2004
Date of Decision : February 17, 2006.
Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation .... Appellant Vs.
Dev Raj, Ex Ware House Manager .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate
for the appellant.
for the respondent.
C.M.No.9103-C & 9104-C of 2004 :
For the reasons stated in the applications, delays in filing and refiling the present appeal, are condoned.
R.S.A.No.3719 of 2004 :
The appellant-Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation filed a suit for recover of Rs.2,63,900/- against the defendant-respondent Dev Raj.
It was claimed by the plaintiff-corporation that Dev Raj was working as a Ware House Manager with the Corporation for a period from September 27, 1983 to April 24, 1986. During the aforesaid period, a shortage of stocks had been detected later on and the defendant was held to be responsible for the said shortage. On account of the aforesaid fact, the plaintiff-corporation filed the present suit.
The suit was contested by the defendant. Various pleas were taken. Any responsibility for the shortage of stocks was denied by him. A plea of limitation was also raised. He also claimed that there was no shortage at all.
C.M.No.9103-04-C of 2004 & : 2 :
R.S.A.No.3719 of 2004
The learned trial court, on the basis of material evidence available on the record, found that loss to the extent of Rs.51,240/- had been proved by the Corporation and it has also been proved that the defendant was responsible for the aforesaid loss. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff-Corporation was decreed for the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the suit and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
The plaintiff-Corporation filed an appeal. Cross-appeal was filed by the defendant. The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence and came to the identical conclusions as had been arrived at by the learned trial court.
The learned first appellate court also noticed the fact that the claim with regard to the loss in the year 1985, had become barred by limitation and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff-Corporation with regard to the aforesaid loss could not be decreed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiff Corporation was dismissed and cross-appeal by the defendant also failed.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 17, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.