State Of Chhattisgarh v. Ramsurat Singh
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
.s<&^ •;'£.-^^s <».
y,^'.- gaw
IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT
BILASPUR FIRST APPEAL N0.
^ \ OF 200|^J hf1"lgii Ba^ FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CObE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 Appellant Defendant State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Distt. Bastar, Jagdalpur
Versus
Respondent Plaintiff Ramsurat Singh, S/o Late Mohan Singh, aged 60 years, R/o Bus Stand, Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) (Arising out of the Judgment and becree passed by the Court of District Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur (presided over by Shri L.S. Tekam), in Civil Suit No. l-6/2006, Ram Surat Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh on 08/07/2008'whereby the Learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of the plointiff for recovery of money of Rs. 21,09,596/- and passed. the decree in favour of plaintiff/respondent herein directing that the defendant/appellant herein is not entitled for recovery for recovery of Rs. 21,09,596/- and is also granted interest @ 67o per year) VALUATEON OF THE SUIT RS.. 21.09.596/-^ COURT FEE PAID RS. 1.23.098/- VALUATION OF THIS APPEAL 21.09.596/- COURT FEE RS. 1.23.098/-
F.A.No.11 of 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH:
Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE MR.I. S. UBOWEJA, JJ.
FirstAppeal No. 11 of2009 APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh DEFENDANT
Versus
RESPONDENT RamsuratSingh PLAINTIFF (FIRST APPEAbUND@RJiSEeTIOI*>i|96 QF THE CODE OF CIVIL ,.^! ^%-si3!-PROGEBUR@i|'9®8Ii;^:
Appearatieg:- '.;
,..
i , Mr. R.K. Mishra, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State.
• Mr. Vikarm Dixit, coynsel forthe respondent.
O R D E R
^/j(22:12;2014) T.P.Sharma, J.:- ;
1. By this appeal under Section 96 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Act'), the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2008 passed by the District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No.l-B/2006, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.21,09,596/- against present appellant.
2. As per plaint allegation, one Sports Officer entered into an agreement with Shiromani Decorator, Kondagaon for supply of tent articles and food arrangement.
On the basis of which, Ex.P/4 was issued on 02.01.2002, In compliance of order (Ex.P/4), respondent ~ supplied articles and made arrangements to the tune of Rs.
/, 27,43,089/-, out of which the appellant has paid Rs. 6,33,493/-, but the appellant has failed to pay remaining amount-of Rs. 21,09.596/-. Notice uncter Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given to the s§g
F.A.No.11 of2009 [\v appellant. Statement for recovery of Rs.21,09,596/- was filed before the trial Court.
3.
By filing written statement, respondent denied adverse allegation.
Respondent has not admitted the charges levelled against him.
4. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, judgment & decree impugned and record of the Court below perused. After passing of %:
decree, the apR3Uantrt!iasWtt"ie)' pai(;t5g5.1tS,23,700/- to the respondent.
6. LearnedzDy. Advocate General for the appellanf/State submits that in abseli'Kse of definite evidence and documents retatiog tq supply and ^[•rangement, by decreeing the suit; the trial Court has cotnmitted an illegality.
He further submitsthatasper paras 10 and 11 of evidence of respondent Shiromani Decoratiori, this is not registered institution owned by three persons namely Klaliesh Kumar Singh, Suresh Kumar Singh and respondent, but responGlenf alone has filed the suit, therefore, trial Court ought to have dfsmiss®dthe suit on the ground of non rejoinder of necessary party.
^; ;
;7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that on the basis of evidence and fact that appellant has failed to adduce evidence, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit.
8. We have perused the ocular and documentary evidence.
9. In the Ijght of payment of amount to some extent, para 10 of evidence of respondent Shiromani Decoration, absence of documentary evidence relating to supply offood and other arrangement, itwould not be possible to affirm the judgment and decree impugned.
In the light of partial admissioh by the appellant; it would also not be possible to dismiss the fv appeal, but it would be appropriate to remit the case to the trial Court for \ providing opportunity tothe parties, to take appropriate steps in the light
F.A. No.11 of 2009 v^ \Y of para 10 of evidence of respondent and to adduce evidence to prove the case.
lO.Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set-aside. The case is remitted to the concerned trial Court for deciding the case afresh after providing opportunity to take appropriate steps in the light of para 10 of evidence of respondent and to provide opportunity to both the parties to adduce documentary evidence.
It is made clear that respondent is a caterer and co-owner of tent house and permission to file the suit as indigent person has been given by the trial Court, which also requires reconsideration.
ll.Parties shall laernain in attendance before tkie coneerned trial Court on 24.Q2.gQT5.
The appellant is not entitled to recover the amount paid to ttteirespondent till the decisionofthe suit by the trial Court:
12. No order asto costs.
Sd/- Inder Singh Uboweja Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Vijay fv