Rajkot Engineering Association vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Rajkot below Exhibit-208 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 1986, whereby the said application was rejected.

The facts in brief are that the Petitioner is an association registered under the Bombay Non trading Act, 1959 and deals in distribution of raw materials to its members. The Petitioner had booked 75 wagons of B.P. Premium Hard Code with Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 handed over the goods to Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1 was supposed to deliver the goods to the Petitioner in good condition. In other words the Petitioner had ordered 1075.200 M.T. and had paid the price of 1075.200 M.T. to Respondent No. 3.

2.1. It is the case of the Petitioner that since there was shortage in 25 wagons and since full railway freight was paid to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the Petitioner took the delivery of goods under protest. Thereafter, the Petitioner served notices u/s 80 of the CPC to the Respondents and also filed 25 suits against the Respondents in the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD) Rajkot. The Respondents submitted their written statement to the suits filed by the Petitioner. The trial Court vide order dated 30.12.1988 framed issues vide Exhibit-17 in Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 1986. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred an application Exhibit-48 to consolidate 22 suits with Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 1986, before the trial Court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 01.11.1999.

2.2. Pending the suits, Railway Claims Tribunal came to be formed and the suits filed by the Petitioner were transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal. On 19.02.1990, the Railway Claims Tribunal passed an order that since the Railway Claims Tribunal cannot decide the case against the party other than the railway, the suits against Respondent No. 3 were transferred to the trial Court. However, the suits against Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were transferred to the Railway Claims Tribunal. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred an application Exhibit-108 before the trial Court for framing additional issues in Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 1996 in order to decide the liability of claim against Respondent No. 3 only. The trial Court vide order dated 15.01.2007 rejected the said application. Hence, this petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the record it transpires that the suit was filed in 1986 and recording of the evidence was completed in the year 2006. Looking to the issue, it is clear that similar issue is framed in Exhibit-17 and therefore it is not necessary to frame additional issue on same point. Thus, issue No. 6 clearly states that it is the responsibility of all the original Defendants to prove that they are not liable for shortage of goods in question. Looking to the facts of the case and when similar issue is already framed then it is not necessary to frame additional issue on the same point. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is warranted by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated.