State of Rajasthan Through The Collector, Sikar v. M/s. J.k. Enterprises, Station Road, Sikar Through Its Proprietor Jayant Kumar S/

: Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhil Dadhich for Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 26/05/2025 Order

1. Instant Second Appeal is preferred by appellants- defendants aggrieved from judgment dated 23.03.2009 in civil regular appeal No. 126/2008 (18/2008) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar whereby judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007 in civil suit No. 28/2007 (141/2005) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Sikar was upheld and affirmed.

2. Learned Government counsel appearing on behalf of appellant while placing reliance upon grounds of appeal has [2025:RJ-JP:23649] (2 of 7) [CSA-566/2011] submitted that a recovery certificate was issued against the plaintiff for recovery of ₹58,180/- on 21.05.2004 under the PDR Act. He further submitted that the plaintiff has claimed a subsidy on sprinkler on basis of false certificate which was granted to agriculturist by NABARD through appellant- defendant(s). He further submitted that after receipt of complaint, an investigation was conducted and during investigation it has been revealed that without installing sprinklers, subsidy was claimed. He further submitted that under Section 20 of the PDR Act, a suit can be brought within a period of 6 months but not afterwards and in the instant case, suit was instituted one and a half year after the issuance of certificate and same was time barred but the Courts below have not considered the legal grounds as raised by the appellants herein. He further submitted that it is necessary for the plaintiff to serve a notice under Section 80 of CPC before filing a suit for declaration but in the instant case, no such notice was served upon the appellants-defendants. He also submitted that the admitted facts clearly indicate that it is a case of fraud and misuse of subsidy. He further submitted that the appellants have proceeded to recover Government money under the law which was falsely claimed by the plaintiff.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff and he submitted that there is a concurrent finding of fact and the plaintiff has able to establish the fact before the Trial Court and on basis of evidence the Trial Court has decided issue in favor of plaintiff. He also submitted that the case of plaintiff is proved as the certificate [2025:RJ-JP:23649] (3 of 7) [CSA-566/2011] was issued without any proper inquiry. At last, he submitted that the plaintiff has claimed subsidy only on sprinkler set which were sold to agriculturist and on basis of sale he has claimed subsidy.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The facts giving rise to institution of present second appeal are that respondent-plaintiff has filed a civil suit under Section 20 of the Public Demands Recovery Act,1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1952) for cancellation of demand recovery certificate and injunction on the ground that the baseless demand recovery notice was served upon him on the ground of misuse of ₹39,000/- as subsidy along with interest. The defendant(s) have filed their written statement and on basis of pleadings of the parties, 5 issues were framed. The plaintiff has examined himself and exhibited 5 documents whereas defendant has examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents. The Trial Court has passed the decree in favor of respondent-plaintiff thereby cancelling demand recovery certificate dated 21.05.2004 and restraining present appellants from recovery in pursuant to certificate dated 21.05.2004. An appeal is preferred by present appellants-defendants and same was dismissed on 23.03.2009.

6. This appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law in ignoring the time limit of six months prescribed under Section 20 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 and in not holding that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was barred under the said provision? [2025:RJ-JP:23649] (4 of 7) [CSA-566/2011] (ii) Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law in not holding that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff without serving statutory notice under Section 80 of CPC was not maintainable? (iii) Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law in mis-appreciating the evidence on record and in recording perverse findings while decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff?

7. Since, these substantial questions of law are inter- connected with each other, therefore, we are deciding these issues with a common discussion. Section 20 of Act of 1952 is reproduced as under.

20. Suits for cancellation or modifications of certificates. - (1) A defaulter may bring a suit to have a certificate canceled or modified and for any further consequential relief to which he may be entitled. (2) Such a suit may be brought at any time within 6 months- (a) from the service upon the defaulter of the notice required by section 6 or (b) from the date of the determination of a petition denying liability under section 8 [x x x], or (c) from the date of the protest lodged by him under section 15, [or] [(d) from the date of the decision of an appeal filed by him under section 23-A]: [x x x] Provided [x x x] that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and in any other law for the time being in force, the defaulter may in a suit instituted 7 under this section, prove that nothing was due from him on account of the public demand or that the amount due was less than the amount stated in the certificate.

8. A perusal of plaint indicate that the suit is filed on

13.12.2005, wherein it was mentioned that a notice under Section 6 was served upon plaintiff on 04.03.2004 and on basis of service of notice, a certificate was issued on

25.03.2004. The suit was filed on basis of knowledge from Tehsildar in first week of December, 2005. The evidence of plaintiff suggested that Ex.1 notice was served on 18.01.2003 [2025:RJ-JP:23649] (5 of 7) [CSA-566/2011] to plaintiff. Further Ex.2 suggests that order is passed on

21.05.2004 and Ex.3 notice under Section 6 of the Act of 1952 was served on 12.03.2004. On the contrary, DW-1 Ashok Chauhan, DW-2 Laxmi Narayan Kumawat, DW-3 Jagpal Singh and DW-4 Ramavtar Sharma appeared as witnesses.

9. Aforementioned facts clearly indicate that from the admitted fact the notice was served to the plaintiff in the month of March, 2004 and even prior to March, 2004, the service of notice dated 04.03.2004 is admitted by the plaintiff and same is issued under Section 6 of Act of 1952. The plaintiff has not challenged the certificate within a period of 6 months as mandated under Section 20(2)(a) of Act of 1952. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed serious error while ignoring the legal timeline as provided under Section20(2) of the Act of 1952. Thus, the suit is filed after a prescribed period of 6 months and same is time barred. The issue No.1 is answered in affirmative in favor of appellants- defendants.

10. Admittedly, no notice was served by the plaintiff under Section 80 of CPC. Section 25 of the Act of 1952 empowers the Officers to have powers of Civil Court for certain purposes particularly receiving evidence, administering oath, enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents. The Officers acting under the Act of 1952 are public servants and it is mandatory for the plaintiff to serve a notice under Section 80 of CPC but herein this case, the plaintiff has filed an application under Section 80(2) of CPC explaining the urgency and the Trial Court has granted [2025:RJ-JP:23649] (6 of 7) [CSA-566/2011] permission, therefore, this issue is answered in negative against the appellants.

11. Having considered the fact that a notice was served before issuing certificate of recovery against the plaintiff and non-participation by plaintiff clearly indicate that the plaintiff has not taken care to participate in the proceeding, therefore, he has not contested the determination of liability by the authority concerned. The plaintiff has an option to file an appeal under Section 23(a) of the Act of 1952 to the Revenue Appellate Authority and further to file a revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 23(b) of the Act of 1952 but the plaintiff has not availed any of these remedies.

12. Herein, this case the plaintiff has led his own evidence to show that he has sold sprinkler set to agriculturists and subsidy amount of ₹39,000/- was received by him. The plaintiff has exhibited 5 documents and these are only relating to recovery certificate but none of them is sufficient to show the facts of the case. The plaintiff has to establish that he purchased the sprinkler system from manufacturer and manufacturer has paid sales tax/VAT on these sprinkler system and further the plaintiff has made entry in his accounts-book and later after sale he submitted his return to the Tax Authority but plaintiff has not filed any cogent evidence so as to show that he has not misused the subsidy. The plaintiff is not a manufacturer rather he is a dealer, therefore, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court without considering the fact decided issue in favor of plaintiff. Thus, both the Courts below have mis-appreciated the evidence on record and recorded a [2025:RJ-JP:23649] (7 of 7) [CSA-566/2011] perverse finding, thus, the issue No.3 is also decided in favor of appellants-defendants.

13. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the substantial question of law Nos. 1 and 3 are decided in favor of appellants- defendants and same are sufficient to allow the instant appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

14. As a result, the instant second appeal is hereby allowed and judgment dated 23.03.2009 in civil regular appeal No. 126/08 (18/08) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar and judgment and decree dated 16.11.2007 in civil suit No. 28/07 (141/2005) are hereby set aside and suit preferred by respondent-plaintiff is hereby dismissed.

15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. MONU /114-S (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J