IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 106 RSA-619-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision.:05.05.2026 Punjab State Warehousing Corpora3on, Chandigarh and Another …..Appellants Vs. M/s J.J. Agro Industries, Nabha road through its partners and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Athar Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–plain"ff against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur dated 09.01.2018 and the learned Addi"onal District Judge, Sangrur dated 04.03.2021, whereby the suit filed by the plain"ff for recovery of an amount of ₹3,93,727/- along with interest has been dismissed and the findings of the Trial Court have been affirmed in appeal. 2. The case of the plain"ff, in brief, is that the defendant–firm was allo7ed a rice sheller for milling of paddy during the crop year 1999- 2000 pursuant to an agreement dated 12.10.1999. It was pleaded that the defendants were under contractual obliga"on to mill the paddy and return rice within the s"pulated period, failing which they were liable for losses, damages and interest. According to the plain"ff, a9er reconcilia"on of accounts and applica"on of final rates communicated by the Government, a sum of ₹6,18,426/- was found recoverable from the defendants, as NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-619-2022 (O&M) reflected in the tabulated account statement placed on record. 3. It was further pleaded that the ma7er was referred to arbitra"on and an award was passed in favour of the plain"ff. Upon objec"ons under Sec"on 34 of the Arbitra"on and Concilia"on Act, the ma7er was reconsidered and the Managing Director of the plain"ff– Corpora"on, vide order dated 21.09.2011, determined the liability of the defendants to the extent of ₹3,57,257/- with interest @12.25% per annum. As the said amount remained unpaid, the plain"ff ins"tuted the present suit. 4. The defendants contested the suit by raising objec"ons regarding limita"on, maintainability and absence of cause of ac"on. On merits, it was contended that the plain"ff had failed to discharge its own obliga"ons under the agreement and that the accounts relied upon by the plain"ff were incorrect and inflated. It was further pleaded that a9er proper adjustment, no amount was due from the defendants and rather the plain"ff was liable to pay certain amount to them. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and the par"es were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. The plain"ff examined its officials as PW1 and PW2 and relied upon the agreement, excerpts of accounts and the order passed by the Managing Director. However, the plain"ff did not produce the original account books or any primary record to substan"ate the entries reflected in the account extracts. The defendants did not lead independent oral evidence but relied upon cross- examina"on and infirmi"es in the plain"ff’s case. 6. Upon apprecia"on of the evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plain"ff had failed to prove the alleged outstanding amount. The first Appellate Court, on re-appraisal of the material on record, affirmed the said findings and dismissed the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-619-2022 (O&M) perspec"ve and have erred in discarding the account statements and the order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Managing Director. It is argued that the liability of the defendants stood established and the suit ought to have been decreed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. 9. At the outset, it may be no"ced that the scope of interference in a Regular Second Appeal under Sec"on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to cases involving a substan"al ques"on of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. 10. In the present case, the en"re claim of the plain"ff rests upon the alleged outstanding amount determined on the basis of account extracts and the order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Managing Director. However, a perusal of the said order shows that it does not disclose the basis or methodology for arriving at the figure of ₹3,57,257/-. The order merely records the conclusion without detailing the calcula"on, and therefore, cannot by itself cons"tute proof of liability. 11. Further, the plain"ff has failed to prove the founda"onal facts necessary to sustain its claim. There is no cogent evidence on record regarding the exact quan"ty of paddy entrusted to the defendants, the quan"ty of rice returned a9er milling or the extent of deficiency, if any. In absence of such material par"culars, the claim remains unsubstan"ated. 12. The reliance placed by the plain"ff on excerpts of accounts is also of no avail, as the original account books were not produced in evidence. It is a se7led principle of law that entries in books of account are not sufficient to fasten liability unless supported by independent evidence. 13. It is also evident from the record that a substan"al component of the amount claimed by the plain"ff comprises interest on delayed Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-619-2022 (O&M) milling. The manner in which such interest has been calculated has not been explained. As no"ced by the Courts below, if the said interest component is excluded, the amount payable to the defendants exceeds the amount recoverable from them, thereby demolishing the very basis of the plain"ff’s claim. 14. Another significant aspect is that the plain"ff has not availed the contractual remedy of forfeiture of security, which was available under the agreement in case of breach by the defendants. This omission further casts doubt on the alleged liability of the defendants. 15. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper apprecia"on of evidence and se7led legal principles. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out in the said findings. 16. No substan"al ques"on of law arises for considera"on in the present appeal. 17. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are affirmed. No order as to costs. All the miscellaneous applica"on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 05, 2026 Nee"ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.07 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document