' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-12-1996, passed by learned Civil Judge, Ist. Class, Pasroor, District Sialkot whereby, suit for recovery of Rs.30,58,900 through rendition of accounts, brought by appellant, was dismissed and claim of set off of the defendant/respondent was allowed and plaintiff-appellant was directed to pay Rs.3,07,729.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that Ch. Muhammad Irshad, plaintiff-appellant, filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the respondent- defendant (Ch. Khurshid) and stated that he was farmer and that defendant owned Cold Storage (Ch. Khursheed Cold Storage) in village Bhilokey, Tehsil Pasroor. He further stated that in April/May, 1992, he stored 4087 bags of potatoes in the cold storage of the defendant @ Rs.55 per bag as rental. He had to take back potatoes till September, 1992 and to pay rental at that time but there was no written agreement regarding the same. The plaintiff maintained that on 29-9-1992 when he reached the cold storage of the defendant- respondent, he came to know that defendant had already sold his potatoes without any justification, therefore, he was bound to pay him price of the same. The plaintiff stated that he had obtained land measuring 160 acres in village Surangian Muktan, Tehsil Pasroor on lease and paid Rs.2,78,000 as lease money and he had to cultivate potato crop in September/October but due to sale of his potatoes by defendant, he could not cultivate the same, therefore, he suffered loss of Rs.3,20,000 and defendant was bound to pay him this amount. He further stated that when defendant-respondent sold his potatoes, market price of the same was Rs.700 per bag but he sold his potatoes at the rate of Rs.450 per bag, therefore, he was bound to pay him Rs.24,60,900. He claimed Rs.30,58,900 in toto. The respondent-defendant mentioned in written statement that the plaintiff stored 3981 bags and out of the same, he purchased 1000 bags from him at the rate of Rs.240 per bag. He further mentioned that for the remaining bags (2981), he had to pay Rs.60 per bag as rental. The defendant stated that he brought potatoes bags to his cold storage at his own expense and spent Rs.99,525 for the same. He further stated that he paid Rs.1 lac in advance to the plaintiff and Rs.4,50,000 through Cheque as loan and plaintiff promised to repay said amount after selling Sunflower Crop till 15th of June but he failed to pay the same. He averred that the plaintiff never came back to receive his potatoes bags and failed to pay their charges amounting to Rs.1,78,860, amount received in advance (Rs.1,00,000) and loan received through cheque (Rs.4,50,000) price paid for purchasing Gunny Bags (Rs.15,924), thus total Rs.8,44,309. He stated that on 29-9-1992, in the presence of at least twenty respectables, 2981 bags of Potatoes belonging to the plaintiff-appellant were sold at the rate of Rs.180 per bag to Muhammad Aslam, resident of Fruit Market, Gujranwala, along with his own potatoes (1000 bags) and now Rs.3,07,729 were outstanding against the plaintiff and defendant was entitled to get the same. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:--
(1) "Whether the plaintiff stored 4087 bags of potatoes including 1600 bags of potatoes seeds, 2487 bags of ration potatoes in the Cold Storage of the defendant up till 30-9-1992 at the rate of Rs.55 per bag as mentioned in para.No.2 of the plaint? OPP
(2) Whether on 27-9-1992 the plaintiff went to the Cold Storage of the defendant for lifting his material? OPP
(3) Whether defendant wrongly and without permission of the plaintiff sold the bags of potatoes as detailed in para.No.2 of the plaint? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff agreed to store 3983 bags of potatoes in the Cold Storage of the defendant and thereafter refused to complete the terms of the agreement? OPD
(5) Whether the defendant purchased 1000 bags of potatoes at the rate of Rs.240 per bag from the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000 to the plaintiff? OPD
(6) Whether the defendant stored the potatoes bags of the plaintiff at his own expense by spending a sum of Rs.99,525? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff was to pay a sum of Rs.178,860 as the fare of 2981 bags at the rate of Rs.60 per bag to the plaintiff? OPD
(8) Whether the defendant gave Rs.1,00,000 as advance and Rs.4,50,000 as loan to the plaintiff on 8-3-1992 as alleged in para.No.2 of the written statement? OPD ( ) Whether the plaintiff failed to make the payment of fare of storage of the potatoes and also the sums given as advance as loan and thus the defendant. In the presence of respectables of the area sold 2981 bags of the potatoes of the plaintiff for Rs.5,36,580 and adjusted this amount towards his claim? OPD
(10) Whether after the adjustment of Rs.5,36,580 a sum of Rs.307,729 is still due from the plaintiff to the defendant? OPD
(11) Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD
(12) Relief."
The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit brought by plaintiff-appellant, and he was directed to pay Rs.3,07,729 to defendant-respondent as claim of set off vide judgment dated 3-12-1996. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above, the appellant had filed suit for recovery of Rs.30,58,900 through rendition of accounts against the respondent/defendant. The case of appellant is that it was agreed between the parties that respondent could not sell potatoes before 30-9-1992.
5. The plaintiff examined P.W.1, Syed Mushtaq Hussain, P.W.2, Muhammad Younas, P.W.3, Ghulam Hussain and he himself appeared as P.W.4 in support of his version. On the other hand, defendant examined D.W.l, Muhammad Aslam, D.W.2, Noor Hussain, D.W.3, Khalid Basheer Bhatti, D.W.4, Arshad, D.W.5, Muhammad Ashraf, D.W:6 Ghulam Mustafa and he himself appeared as D.W.7. The plaintiff while appearing as P.W.4 admitted in cross- examination that Muhammad Aslam (purchaser of potatoes) was a gentleman. He (Muhammad Aslam) appeared as D.W.l and stated that he had purchased 40.Bags of potatoes @ Rs.180 per bag. He further stated that at the relevant time, rate of potatoes was from Rs. 150 to Rs.200 per bag and he had purchased potatoes from defendant on the last day of September, 1992 and that the same belonged to plaintiff. D.W.2 Noor Hussain, also corroborated his statement. The statements of D.Ws.1 and 2 are convincing and confidence- inspiring and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. D.W.3, Khalid Bashir Bhatti, deposed that he along with Ghulam Mustafa visited the house of Agha Ghulam Haider, where he (Ghulam Mustafa) asked the plaintiff to take back his potatoes, who promised to do so but, later on, failed to receive the same because he had no money with him. D.W.4 Arshad, stated that he brought 4,000 bags of potatoes from village Kaswa l and defendant paid him fare of the same. D.W.5, Muhammad Ashraf is 'Munshi' of Cold Storage of defendant. He too supported the version of the defendant. The defendant while appearing as D.W.7, clearly stated that the plaintiff agreed to store 5,000 bags of potatoes in his cold storage. He further stated that plaintiff obtained loan of Rs.45,000 from him but did not storq the potatoes, therefore, he brought 3981 bags of potatoes by a trolley and stored the same in his cold storage. He deposed that out of said potatoes bags, he purchased 1000 bags for Rs.2,40,000 and paid him the price of the same. The defendant stated that plaintiff had to store the potatoes at his own expense in his own bags but he did nothing, therefore, he purchased bags for Rs.1,00,000 and paid fare at the rate of Rs.4 per bag (totalling Rs. 1,600). He deposed that he had to charge Rs.60 per bag as rental but plaintiff failed to pay any amount and he had to get Rs.3,00,000 from him. The defendant also deposed that after the expiry of season, the plaintiff did not take back his potatoes, therefore, he sold the same and now Rs.3,07,729 were outstanding against him. It is clear from the evidence available on record that plaintiff failed to pay fare, amount spent by the defendant for purchasing gunny bags and rental for storing potatoes. He also failed to take back potatoes after the expiry of season, therefore, defendant was constrained to sell the same. It is clear from the record that plaintiff intentionally avoided to receive back potatoes due to low market price. Even otherwise, plaintiff* has failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of his case. His version is baseless. So, in the circumstances of the case, we find that learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit brought by plaintiff-appellant.
' The findings recorded by learned trial Court on all the issues are accordingly affirmed.
6. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that his appeal has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed.
' No order as to costs.