M/s. Minhas Industries vs Chairman, HPSEB and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Plaintiff-appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 3/12/11, titled as M/s. Minhas Industries Sultanpur versus Chairman, HPSEB and others, whereby judgment and decree dated 29.4.2011, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, in Civil Suit No. 64/04, titled as M/s. Minhas Industries Sultanpur versus Chairman, HPSEB and others, stands affirmed. Plaintiff claimed to have carried out repairs of vehicles belonging to the defendants-respondents, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, in relation to which the bills were not cleared. As such, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,31,190/-. Defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that payments, due and admissible, in terms of the work order, stood paid to the plaintiff and no bill for the balance amount was pending.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 1,62,675/- as prayed for? OPP

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable action against the defendants, as alleged? OPD

Relief.

The relevant issue was decided against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed. Findings of fact stand affirmed by the lower appellate Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal.

Noticeably, parties have been litigating since the year 2004 and all litigations must come to an end at some stage, more so when no case for interference is made out.

Significantly, before the lower appellate Court, plaintiff filed an application for leading additional evidence, which stands rejected. Plaintiff wanted to examine the drivers of the vehicles which were repaired. In my considered view, the lower appellate Court rightly rejected such application as there was sufficient opportunity available with the plaintiff to have examined the said persons during trial. Also, no justifiable reason for leading additional evidence, at the appellate stage, stands explained or substantiated.

The Courts below have concurrently held that only one vehicle bearing No. HPK-6203 was got repaired by the defendants from the plaintiff for which bills stood cleared. There was no authority with regard to the work allegedly carried out by the plaintiff, other than the same. As such, it cannot be said that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.