1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT
: S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.874/2011 Deepa Ram versus Potaliya Krishi Seva Kendra & Anr.
Date of Judgment :: 15.01.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.R.R.Ankiya, for Mr.V.N.Kalla, for the appellant.
---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Churu ('the trial court') as upheld by the Additional District Judge, Churu ('the appellate court') by its judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff Potaliya Krishi Seva Kendra against the appellant and Churu District Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,895/- alongwith interest.
It was inter alia, claimed that goods were supplied by the plaintiff for setting-up a pump set and sprinkler set.
While the payment of the pump set amounting to Rs.23,000/- was paid and the amount of sprinkler set Rs.36,500/- was not paid and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the same from the appellant and the Bank as the said goods was sold under the scheme of the Bank.
2 The facts alleged in the plaint were denied by the appellant, further the Bank also filed its reply and disputed its liability.
The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that alongwith the pump set, sprinkler set was also sold to the appellant and the amount of the said sprinkler set remained outstanding, however, while holding the appellant liable for payment, the Court found that the Bank was not liable for payment as there was no privity between the Bank and the plaintiff.
The fiRs.appellate court after hearing the parties, upheld the decree passed by the trial court.
The appellate court also found that though the jurisdiction of the civil court was questioned under issue Nos.2A & 2B and were decided by the trial court, the said issues were not questioned in the fiRs.appeal.
From the perusal of judgment and decree passed by the trial court as upheld by the fiRs.appellate court, it is apparent that on the issue of sale of the sprinkler set with the pump set, both the courts below have concurrently found that the sprinkler set was sold alongwith the pump set and, therefore the said finding of the fact cannot be questioned in this second appeal and even otherwise the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the said findings.
The finding on Issue Nos.2A and 2B was sought to be questioned regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court, however, as apparently the finding recorded by the trial court was not 3 questioned before the fiRs.appellate court, now it is not open for the appellant to reagitate the issues already abandoned before the fiRs.appellate court.
In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the second appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
The stay application is also dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI).J.
PKS-44