S. Iqbal Singh and Others Vs. the State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1138881
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-26-2014
AppellantS. Iqbal Singh and Others
RespondentThe State of Haryana
Excerpt:
-1- rs.no.630 of 1988 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh rs.no.630 of 1988 (o&m) date of decision: 26.04.2014 s. iqbal singh and others ....appellants versus the state of haryana ....respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. 2) to be referred to the reporters or not ?. 3) whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. present: - ms.gaganpreet kaur, advocate, for mr.b.r.mahajan, advocate, for the appellants. mr.sandeep s. mann, addl. a.g., haryana. ***** paramjeet singh, j. (oral) this regular second appeal by defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1986 passed by learned additional senior sub judge, bhiwani, whereby the suit for recovery filed by respondent-state was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1987 passed by learned additional district judge, bhiwani, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants has been allowed partly. for convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. the detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the singh ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh -2- rs.no.630 of 1988 judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. however, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that respondent-state filed a suit for recovery of rs.3894-70 (rs.3350/- as principal amount plus rs.544-70 as interest) with costs of the suit and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery of decretal amount. it was the case of the plaintiff that fishing rights in all the waters of district bhiwani, including canals and drains etc.for the year 1979-80, were put to auction on 17.07.1979 at badkhal in faridabad district. during the auction proceedings, defendant no.1 gave the highest bid of rs.13,000/- which was accepted by plaintiff through fisheries development officer, bhiwani. an amount of rs.200/- was deposited by defendant no.1 as earnest money. defendant no.1 also deposited an amount of rs.4400/- being 1/3rd of the total auction amount. according to the agreement executed by defendant no.1 with the plaintiff, defendant no.1 was to pay the remaining amount of rs.8700/- in two equal instalments. firs.instalment was to be deposited on or before 1st day of december, 1979 and second instalment was to be deposited on or before 20.03.1980. therefore, defendant no.1 also paid firs.instalment of rs.4350/-. defendants no.3 and 4 executed surety bonds for defendants no.1 and 2 and they agreed to pay the remaining amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on demand to the plaintiff. defendant no.1 failed to deposit the second instalment. finally fishing rights of bhiwani district were reauctioned on 19.05.1980 for a consideration of singh ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh -3- rs.no.630 of 1988 rs.1000/-. defendant no.2 was proceeded against ex parte on 08.06.1985 and remaining defendants filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. it was pleaded that defendant no.1 could not start work as the licence was issued on 30.11.1979 and the same was received by defendant no.1 in the month of december, 1979. fishing officer, dadri, also stopped the work of defendants on 07.12.1979. an overseer in the canal department also got started fishing work by a private party in the month of january, 1980. it was pleaded that there was no water provided by the canal department in the loharu canal from which defendant no.1 used to enjoy fishing rights. it is further pleaded that reauction dated 19.05.1980 is also wrong and illegal as no notice was given to defendant no.1 prior to reauction. denying other allegations in the plaint, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. plaintiff filed replication to the written statement denying the averments in the written statement and reiterating the averments in the plaint. court of firs.instance, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: - “1. whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover rs.3894-70 paise from the defendant as alleged in paragraph no.9 of the plaint?. opp2 whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so at what rate?. opp3 whether the suit has not been properly verified?. opd singh ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh -4- rs.no.630 of 1988 4. whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?. opd5 whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?. opd6 whether no valid notice was served upon the defendants as required under the regulation of accounts act?. opd7 whether the suit is pre-mature?. opd8 whether plaintiff has no cause of action to bring the suit?. opd9 whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendants are entitled to special costs?. opd10 whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?. opd11 relief.”. the court of firs.instance, after appreciating evidence on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of rs.3886/- with costs of the suit and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery of decretal amount. against the judgment and decree of the court of firs.instance, appellants preferred an appeal which was partly allowed by lower appellate court and plaintiffs were held entitled to recover the amount of rs.3350/- only and interest part was waived off. hence, this second appeal. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. at the time of admission, no substantial question of law was singh ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh -5- rs.no.630 of 1988 framed, however, during the cours.of arguments learned counsel for the appellants raised following substantial question of law: - “whether the judgments and decrees passed by courts below are pervers.and not sustainable in the eyes of law?.”. the suit was filed for recovery of rs.3894-70 paise and findings of fact have been recorded after appreciating evidence on record. lower appellate court passed the decree for rs.3350/- without any interest. in pursuance of undertaking of the appellants at the time of admission of this appeal on 22.04.1988, the decretal amount was deposited with the registry of this court. otherwise also, this is a meager amount. in view of amended provisions of code of civil procedure appeal does not lie. in view of this, no question of law, muchless substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. no other point has been urged. dismissed. respondent-state will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited with the registry, along with interest, if any, accrued thereon in fixed deposit. (paramjeet singh) judge april 26, 2014 r.s.singh ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

-1- Rs.No.630 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.630 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.04.2014 S.

Iqbal Singh and others ....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.

Present: - Ms.Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate, for Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr.Sandeep S.

Mann, Addl.

A.G., Haryana.

***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

(ORAL) This regular second appeal by defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1986 passed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the suit for recovery filed by respondent-State was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants has been allowed partly.

For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit.

The detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the Singh Ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- Rs.No.630 of 1988 judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced.

However, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that respondent-State filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3894-70 (Rs.3350/- as principal amount plus Rs.544-70 as interest) with costs of the suit and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery of decretal amount.

It was the case of the plaintiff that fishing rights in all the waters of District Bhiwani, including canals and drains etc.for the year 1979-80, were put to auction on 17.07.1979 at Badkhal in Faridabad District.

During the auction proceedings, defendant No.1 gave the highest bid of Rs.13,000/- which was accepted by plaintiff through Fisheries Development Officer, Bhiwani.

An amount of Rs.200/- was deposited by defendant No.1 as earnest money.

Defendant No.1 also deposited an amount of Rs.4400/- being 1/3rd of the total auction amount.

According to the agreement executed by defendant No.1 with the plaintiff, defendant No.1 was to pay the remaining amount of Rs.8700/- in two equal instalments.

FiRs.instalment was to be deposited on or before 1st day of December, 1979 and second instalment was to be deposited on or before 20.03.1980.

Therefore, defendant No.1 also paid fiRs.instalment of Rs.4350/-.

Defendants No.3 and 4 executed surety bonds for defendants No.1 and 2 and they agreed to pay the remaining amount along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on demand to the plaintiff.

Defendant No.1 failed to deposit the second instalment.

Finally fishing rights of Bhiwani District were reauctioned on 19.05.1980 for a consideration of Singh Ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- Rs.No.630 of 1988 Rs.1000/-.

Defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex parte on 08.06.1985 and remaining defendants filed written statement taking various preliminary objections.

It was pleaded that defendant No.1 could not start work as the licence was issued on 30.11.1979 and the same was received by defendant No.1 in the month of December, 1979.

Fishing Officer, Dadri, also stopped the work of defendants on 07.12.1979.

An Overseer in the canal department also got started fishing work by a private party in the month of January, 1980.

It was pleaded that there was no water provided by the canal department in the Loharu Canal from which defendant No.1 used to enjoy fishing rights.

It is further pleaded that reauction dated 19.05.1980 is also wrong and illegal as no notice was given to defendant No.1 prior to reauction.

Denying other allegations in the plaint, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement denying the averments in the written statement and reiterating the averments in the plaint.

Court of fiRs.instance, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: - “1.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3894-70 paise from the defendant as alleged in paragraph No.9 of the plaint?.

OPP2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so at what rate?.

OPP3 Whether the suit has not been properly verified?.

OPD Singh Ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- Rs.No.630 of 1988 4.

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?.

OPD5 Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?.

OPD6 Whether no valid notice was served upon the defendants as required under the Regulation of Accounts Act?.

OPD7 Whether the suit is pre-mature?.

OPD8 Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to bring the suit?.

OPD9 Whether the suit is false and frivolous and the defendants are entitled to special costs?.

OPD10 Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?.

OPD11 Relief.”

.

The Court of fiRs.instance, after appreciating evidence on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.3886/- with costs of the suit and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery of decretal amount.

Against the judgment and decree of the Court of fiRs.instance, appellants preferred an appeal which was partly allowed by lower appellate Court and plaintiffs were held entitled to recover the amount of Rs.3350/- only and interest part was waived off.

Hence, this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

At the time of admission, no substantial question of law was Singh Ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -5- Rs.No.630 of 1988 framed, however, during the couRs.of arguments learned counsel for the appellants raised following substantial question of law: - “Whether the judgments and decrees passed by Courts below are perveRs.and not sustainable in the eyes of law?.”.

The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.3894-70 paise and findings of fact have been recorded after appreciating evidence on record.

Lower appellate Court passed the decree for Rs.3350/- without any interest.

In pursuance of undertaking of the appellants at the time of admission of this appeal on 22.04.1988, the decretal amount was deposited with the Registry of this Court.

Otherwise also, this is a meager amount.

In view of amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure appeal does not lie.

In view of this, no question of law, muchless substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

No other point has been urged.

Dismissed.

Respondent-State will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited with the Registry, along with interest, if any, accrued thereon in fixed deposit.

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge April 26, 2014 R.S.Singh Ravinder 2014.05.02 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh