RSA-3024-2025 (O& RSA-3061-2025 (O& [309] [1] Punjab Agr Chandigarh M/s Mohan [2] Punjab Agr and another M/s Mohan Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] parties. Sin by the appe culled out [2] bags of whe ₹1,15,058.7 however v (O&M) & 5 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA RSA-3024 Date of De ab Agro Food Grain Corporation, digarh and another versus Mohan Lal Madan Lal and another RSA-3061 ab Agro Food Grain Corporation nother versus Mohan Lal Madan Lal and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) These two appeals arise out . Since the suits are based on same e appellants from the Commission A d out from RSA-3024-2025 arising ou As per the facts of the case, wheat through plaintiffs w.e.f. 14.0 ,058.76 was payable to the plaintiff ver vide communication dated 20.0 T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 3024-2025 (O&M) of Decision : 29.01.2026 …Appellants ….Respondents 3061-2025 (O&M) …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN vocate for the appellants. e out of the cross-suits filed by riv me transaction of purchase of whe Agents-plaintiffs, the facts are bein ing out of Civil Suit No.1211 of 2015. case, the appellants purchased 1003 f. 14.04.2014 till 28.04.2014. A sum o laintiffs for the same. The appellan 20.05.2014 claimed shortage of 63 1 by rival f wheat re being f 2015. 10030 sum of pellants of 630 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.03 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3024-2025 (O& RSA-3061-2025 (O& bags of wh parties. P seeking rec supplied th hand, filed wheat, and [3] Agents, dis record tha defendants, 05.05.2014 stock in qu possession produce th below non Commissio [4] the factum chargeshee convicted f [5] inference evidence in [6] to be dismi (O&M) & 5 (O&M) wheat out of the total stock. Th es. Plaintiffs in the present suit, i.e ing recovery of ₹1,15,058.76 along w the total wheat stock to the defe , filed cross-suit, claiming deficiency o and sought recovery of ₹6,27,291/- Both the Courts below decreed ts, dismissing the suit filed by the d that qua deficiency in the stoc dants, namely Suraj Pal, was cha .2014 was lodged against security s in question with Police Station Julk ession of best piece of evidence in the the same before the Court. In non-suited the appellants and d mission Agents. Learned counsel for the appell factum of Inspector, i.e. employee esheeted and the security staff having icted for shortage of wheat stock. That apart the Courts below ence against the appellants-defendants nce in the form of gate pass. Findings no merits in the pres dismissed. k. This led to the dispute between th i.e. Commission Agents, filed su long with interest, claiming of havin e defendants. Defendants on the oth iency of the same stock, i.e. 630 bags o - along with interest. ecreed the suit filed by the Commissio y the appellants, as it was proved o e stock, Inspector employee of s chargesheeted. FIR No.57 date urity staff qua siphoning of the whe Julkan. Defendants though were the form of gate pass but opted not In these circumstances, the Cour and decreed the suit filed by th appellants is not in a position to dispu loyee of the appellants having bee having been criminally prosecuted an below rightly have drawn an advers ndants for withholding the best piece o e present appeals, the same are ordere 2 een the iled suit having he other bags of mission oved on of the 7 dated wheat were in not to Courts by the dispute been ted and adverse iece of ordered RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.03 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3024-2025 (O& RSA-3061-2025 (O& [7] disposed of [8] 29.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma' (O&M) & 5 (O&M) All pending miscellaneous ed off. Photocopy of this order be plac .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable neous application(s), if any, stand be placed on the file of connected case (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 3 stands d case. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.03 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document