- (1.) C.M. No.5494-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. True typed copies along with photocopies of the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2009 passed by the learned trial Court are permitted to be filed along with appeal. C.M. No.5495-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. The appellants are permitted to affix and fulfill the deficiency in Court fee by affixing Court fee stamps. RSA No.1966 of 2011 Plaintiffs/appellants are in second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants for rendition of accounts was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Divn) Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.2009 however, in appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa partly accepted the appeal to the effect that the appellants herein are entitled to recover the amount as mentioned in bill Ex.P-9 and endorsement Ex.P-10 subject to affixation of stamp fee with fine vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010.
(2.) Facts necessary for the proper adjudication of the case in hand are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed the suit seeking rendition of the account with a direction to the defendants to pay the same found due towards them along with interest, further interest and costs, on the averments that the suit is filed by plaintiff nos.2 & 3 being partners of plaintiff no.1 which is registered partnership firm. The defendant had appointed the plaintiff no.1 including plaintiff nos.2 & 3 namely Parmod Kumar and Bhushan Kumar for handling and transportation of food grain at Sirsa at the rate of 1250% above applicable schedule of rates vide order dated 11.04.2000 passed by the District Manager. Thereafter the plaintiffs executed the terms and conditions and executed an agreement for the work which was to be completed within a period of minimum of one year by the plaintiffs. In this way, the defendants were under commitment for a period of one year to avail the services of plaintiffs upto 31.03.2001 but in the month of July 2000 the District Manager pressurized the plaintiffs to give an undertaking for handling of wheat at the rate of 873% above SOR on the plea that he being on deputation was having no knowledge of the corporation norms and had inadvertently issued earlier order dated 11.04.2000. In this manner, though the undertaking was given by the plaintiffs but that was only for handling of wheat and accordingly ex-post facto sanction for appointment of the plaintiffs to handle the wheat at the rate of 873% above SOR was granted. But afterward bills of the plaintiffs were passed at the rate of 873% above SOR instead of agreed rate of 1250% above SOR which resulted into a great monetary loss and mental harassment to the plaintiffs. In the month of September 2000, the plaintiffs again requested by the District Manager to give a fresh consent to handle the paddy stock at the rate of 873% and accordingly the plaintiffs gave the consent for the same only for paddy crops but the order dated 30.10.2000 was issued for entire good grains arbitrarily by the District Manager. It is further averred that the plaintiffs were asked by the District Manager defendant no.2 and Procurement Incharge to transport the paddy procured at Sirsa Mandi to various Rice Shellers after weighing the vehicles carrying paddy at weigh bridge situated at Sirsa and accordingly the plaintiffs executed the work of handling of paddy but the bills submitted to the District Manager by the plaintiffs through the manager amounting to wrongful withholding and retention of the just payable amounts to the plaintiffs. In this manner, the acts of obtaining fresh undertaking time and again from the plaintiffs, on the basis of lame excuses have resulted into cheating. The defendants have also caused wrongful loss to the plaintiff by defying the terms and conditions mutually settled between the parties and by withholding the amount payable to the plaintiff in illegal manner. The various bills submitted by the plaintiffs have not been paid by the defendants. The defendant were also served with legal notice by the plaintiff but in vain.
(3.) Upon notice, defendants/respondents filed joint written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. On merits the claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by taking standing that M/s Parmod Kumar and Company was appointed as Labour Contractor for Godown Operation including out station stock and local cartage except mandi operation by the District Administration, Sirsa. The matter was reported to the Head Officer for approval of rates and the rate of 873% above SOR was sanctioned, so in such circumstances when the Mandi Labour Contractor was appointed at the rate of 873% above SOR regarding which an agreement was also executed by the plaintiffs. So far as the payment of bills was concerned, some of the bills have been passed but a bill could not be passed for want of sanction and the same has been submitted to the Head Office and as and when it is received, the payment of the same shall be released in favour of the plaintiffs.;