1 - Pawan Kumr Agrawal S/o Sagarmal Agrawal, Pro. Agrawal Shaw (Saw) Mill, R/o v. 1 – Manager, Madhya Pradesh Hastshilp Vakas Nigam Limited
Case Details
Page 1 of 11 2025:CGHC:26335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 29 of 2008 1 - Pawan Kumr Agrawal S/o Sagarmal Agrawal, Pro. Agrawal Shaw (Saw) Mill, R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapru , Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 – Manager, Madhya Pradesh Hastshilp Vakas Nigam Limited (Madhya Pradesh Handicraft Development Corporation Limited), Mahamaya Road, In front of Samlaya Temple, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) Now Manager, Chhattisgarh Khadi and Gramt Udyog Board Hastshilp Prakoshtha, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) 2- Managing Directior, Madhya Pradesh Handicraft Development Corporation Limited, Hamidiya Road, Bhopal (M.P.) Now Incharge Manager, Head Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Khadi and Gram Udyog Board Hastshilp Prakoshtha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3- Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
of wood there is no dispute, however, they have specifically stated that the plaintiff has provided 25 sets of loom out of which 10 sets are suitable and 15 sets are unsuitable, therefore, payment of Rs. 70,000/- has been made for 10 sets of loom. The plaintiff was directed to lift the unsuitable woods from the premises and replace the said woods within 3 days. But the plaintiff did not lift the rejected woods, therefore, the said woods were seized after intimating him the same and the work order was canceled, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for payment of 15 sets of substandard loom and prayed for Page 5 of 11 dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 8 issues. Issue No. 2 and 3 are relevant for adjudication of the present appeal and they are extracted below : (2) Whether the plaintiff had supplied 25 sets of loom to the defendant No. 1 out of which 10 sets were upto mark and 15 sets were found unsuitable ? (3) Whether defendant No. 1 has paid Rs. 70,000/- to the plaintiff for 10 right sets and asked to take back the unsuitable 15 sets of loom? If yes, then what is its effect ? 5. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined himself as PW-1 and Bharat Das as PW-2, exhibited documents namely Affidavit as Exhibit P-1, Receipt as Exhibit P-2, Notice as Exhibit P-3, Receipt as Exhibit P- 4, Letter dated 09.09.1996 as Exhibit P-5, letter dated 09.02.1996 as Exhibit P-6, letter dated 28.11.1995 as Exhibit P-7, letter dated 27.11.1995 as Exhibit P- 8, letter dated 21.11.1995 as Exhibit P-9, letter dated 09.11.1995 as Exhibit P-10, letter dated 01.11.1995 as Exhibit P- 11, letter dated 12.10.1995 as Exhibit P-12, letter dated 14.09.1995 Exhibit P-13, letter dated 14.09.1995 Exhibit P-14, letter dated 14.09.1995 Exhibit P-15, letter dated 14.09.1995 Exhibit P-16, letter dated 16.08.1995 Exhibit P-17, letter dated 31.07.1995 Exhibit P-18, letter dated 07.07.1995 Exhibit P-19, letter dated 7.06.1995 from the department to the plaintiff Exhibit P-20, letter dated 06.06.1995 Exhibit P-21, letter dated Page 6 of 11 03.06.1995 Exhibit P-22, acceptance letter dated 31.05.1995 Exhibit P-23, letter dated 29.05.1995 from the department to the plaintiff Exhibit P-24, receipt Exhibit P-25, certificate Exhibit P-26 to 28, paper publication Exhibit P-29, Receipt Exhibit P-30, letter dated 13.12.1995 Exhibit P-31. 6. The defendant No.1 examined Jitendra Singh, Incharge Handloom Division as DW-1 and exhibited documents namely statement of an employee of the plaintiff as Exhibit D-1, returned Envelops Exhibit D-2 & 3. 7. The plaintiff’s witness in his examination in chief by way of affidavit reiterated the stand which he has taken in the plaint. The witness was extensively cross-examined by the defendants wherein he has stated that he has supplied 156 Nos. of Saza wood and remaining woods he has not supplied as the defendants have intimated him that the woods were sub- standard. He has also admitted that vide Ex. P/11 the defendants had asked him to replace the unsuitable woods. He has also admitted that vide Ex.P-6, 77 Nos. of wood were rejected and he had been asked to take back and only 10 sets of loom were accepted and the payment of the same was ascertained by the defendants as Rs. 70,130/- out of which Rs. 70,000/- was adjusted against the advance of Rs. 70,000/- given to him and he was asked to collect remaining Rs. 130/- from the office. 8. The defendants’ witness Jitendra Singh, DW-1 in his cross- examination has categorically stated that as per the report submitted by Updev Ram Ex.D/1, 50 Sahtun, 37 Roller, 50 Page 7 of 11 Pankhi and 9 Patra have been made and woods of Eucalyptus have been used in its making. In the Ex.D/1 it has been mentioned that on the instruction of the plaintiff he has prepared the loom. 9. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record dismissed the suit and recorded its finding that the plaintiff is unable to prove his case. This judgment and decree is being assailed in this first appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently criticized the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court contending that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence ledd by the plaintiff. He would further submit that the burden of proof lies upon the defendants to prove the quality of the materials supplied by him as they have raised the issue of unsuitability of the woods. He would further submit that even the woods have not been checked by the experts to ascertain the quality of the woods. He would further submit that the defendants have used all the woods supplied by him in preparing the looms. If the woods were not suitable the same might not have been used in preparing the looms and it ought to have been returned to him, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law and would pray for allowing the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is legal and justified and does not warrant interference by Page 8 of 11 this Court. He would further submit that the burden of proof lies upon the appellant to prove his case as he has filed the suit and affirmative action of good quality of the woods has been taken by him whereas the defendants have taken the stand that the goods were not upto the standard quality prescribed in the work order, as such the plaintiff should have proved that the materials supplied by him are upto the standard which he miserably failed to prove as such the trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit. On this submission, it has been prayed for dismissal the appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below with utmost satisfaction. 13. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the point emerged for determination of this Court is:- “Whether the plaintiff was able to prove that the woods supplied by him were upto the mark i.e. of Saza species as per the work order issued by the respondents? 14. From perusal of the record it is quite vivid that as per the report (Ex.D/1) given by the carpenter who has prepared the loom, looms were prepared by Saza and Eucalyptus woods supplied by the plaintiff and the report further states that on the instructions of the plaintiff, the carpenter has made 50 Nos. of Sahtun out of which 30 Sahtun were made by Eucalyptus woods, similarly 17 Rollers out of 37 Nos. and 30 Pankhi out 50 Nos. were made by Eucalyptus woods. There is no cross- examination with regard to admission of the report as Ex.D/1. On Page 9 of 11 the contrary the witness DW1 in his cross examination has stated that the Ex.D/1 was written to the Manager of the Department and the contents of the report have also been affirmed in the cross-examination. 15. The learned trial Court while dismissing the suit has recorded its finding that plaintiff has not been able to establish that he has supplied the entire materials with standard prescribed in the advertisement by the defendants. The Trial Court has also recorded its finding that the defendants have paid the amount for the supply which has been done by the plaintiff as per the specification of the plaintiff. Accordingly, it has dismissed the suit. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court. 16. It is well settled position of law that since plaintiff is one who began the law suit he has burden of proof which means that the plaintiff is responsible for convincing the judge that the defendants did something wrong. It is also well settled position of law in civil cases that the plaintiff should have proved his case on the principle of preponderance of evidence then only burden shifts upon the defendants to rebut the said evidence. 17. The issue of burden of proof was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nomi Singh and another (2015) 14 SCC 450 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph- 11 and 12 as under:- Page 10 of 11 11. It is settled principle of law that in respect of relief claimed by a plaintiff, he has to stand on his own legs by proving his case. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court, this Court finds that the High Court has wrongly shifted burden of proof on the defendants. In the middle of paragraph 12, while giving its reasons to disagree with the decree passed by the courts below, the High Court has observed as under: - "It was respondent-defendant who has challenged the possession of plaintiff and his father on the ground of khasra entries, therefore, burden of proving the fact that allegations made by the defendant are correct, is on the defendant, in which defendant has failed. Further it has been admitted before the Court that entry of plaintiffs in the khasra record is as encroacher, but no such khasra entries have been produced by them.…" In the middle of paragraph 15 of the impugned decree, again the High Court observes: - "Further the defendant has failed to prove the possession of plaintiff and his father was that of an encroacher. Defendant has further failed to prove the khasra Nos. 1950 to 1952 to be wrong or that patta given to the plaintiffs, was only for one year,.…" 12. The above observations made by the High Court, show that it has erroneously placed onus of proof of title and possession of the plaintiffs, on defendant. The High Court has completely ignored the fact that the plaintiff after losing case in the first round from trial court, got amended the plaint and took plea of adverse possession, on which matter was remanded to the trial court, and after hearing parties suit was again dismissed, which was upheld by the first appellate court. The above approach of the High Court is against the law laid down by this Court, and in our opinion, it erred in law in reversing the decree passed by the trial court and that of the first appellate court by shifting burden of proof on the defendant. 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Board of Trustees, Sri Ram Mandir, Jagtial Karimanagar District, Andra Praesh vs. S. Rajyalaxmi(dead) and others reported in 2019(2) SCC 338 has held in paragraph-21 as under:- 21-It is an established position of law that the burden to proof ownership over the suit property is on the plaintiff. (See Corporation of City of Bangalore vs. Zulekha Bai and Ors. Page 11 of 11 (2008). This court in the case of Parimal vs. Veena (2011) 3SCC 545, held that: 19. The provisions of Section 101 of the Evidence Act provide that the burden of proof of the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts it and not on the party who denies it. In fact, burden of proof means that a party has to prove an allegation before he is entitled to a judgment in his favour. Section 103 provides that burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any special law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. The provision of Section 103 amplifies the general rule of Section 101 that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the affirmative of the facts in issue. 19. From the above stated position of law, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff is required to prove his affirmative averments that he has supplied the woods upto the mark as per the work order issued to him, but he has not been able to discharge his burden. On the contrary the report Ex.D/1 given by the employee of the plaintiff himself goes against the plaintiff which is not subject matter of challenge or rebuttal by the plaintiff by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present first appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 20. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.07.07 11:01:15 +0530
Arguments
: Shri Sandeep Patel, Advocate Page 2 of 11 For R1 and R2 : Shri S.D. Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 20.06.2025 1. This is plaintiff’s first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2006 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13-B/2005 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 89,066/- and security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- against the respondents. 2. For convenience plaintiff and defendants are termed as it exists before the learned trial Court. 3. The brief facts as reflected from the plaint’s averments are that:- 3.A) The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs. 89,066/- against the defendants mainly contending that the defendants published public notice inviting quotation in local newspaper “Ambikapur Wani” on 03.05.1995 for supply of woods for Collin Loom. The plaintiff submitted his quotation and the work order was issued in his favour on 03.06.1995 for providing 25 set of looms for total 175 logs of Saza species. Description of each set of looms is as follows :- Page 3 of 11 Sr. No. Purpose of size Quantity A B C D wood For Roller 12”X8”X8” For Sahtun 10”X5”X12” For Patra 12”X10”X2” 2 Nos. 2 Nos. 1 No. For Handle 2½”X10”X1½” 2 Nos. Total 7 Nos. 3.B) The plaintiff accepted the work order and as per the terms and conditions of the work order, he deposited Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money on 06.06.1995. As per the work order, the woods were to be provided within 30 days. The plaintiff did not get the particular species of wood from the forest department in time. On the request of the plaintiff, the defendant department extended the date for depositing the woods. The plaintiff deposited 60 logs on 19.09.1995, 60 logs on 13.10.1995 and 36 logs on 15.10.1995. As such, he deposited total of 156 logs of Saza wood, therefore, he demanded Rs. 50,000/- as advance on 14.09.1995. 3.C)The defendants paid only Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff again demanded Rs. 50,000/- on 12.10.1995. The defendants paid only Rs.40,000/- against said demand. Thereafter, the defendants started misbehaving with the plaintiff and rejected the remaining payment alleging the woods to be sub-standard. The defendants issued memo dated 21.11.1995 contending that the materials supplied by Page 4 of 11 him are not suitable, he shall replace the said materials within 3 days, otherwise the work order will be cancelled. The plaintiff submitted reply wherein he stated that the standard of the materials supplied by him has already been ascertained by the technical assistant of the department, therefore, subsequent allegation is nothing but an intention to harass the plaintiff. The defendants again sent a notice on 28.11.1995 threatening the plaintiff to seize the woods supplied by him. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent legal a notice to the defendants by registered post on 02.09.1996. The defendants did not reply to the said legal notice. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 89,066/- and amount of security deposit. 3.D)The defendants have filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that so far as issuance of the work order and the supply of the 156 logs