Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs Manjit Singh on 18 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
RSA No.3563 of 2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:052243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
115 RSA No.3563 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 18.04.2024
Gurmeet Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
Manjit Singh ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. A.P Kaushal, Advocate for
Mr. K.S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
CM-12779-C-2023
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 33 days in re- filing the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 33 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned. RSA-3563-2023
3. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant- appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2023 passed by the First Appellate Court.
4. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff- respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,40,000/- i.e. Rs.4,20,000/- as principal (arrears of rent for 07 months); further an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as damages caused to fixtures and fittings etc.; and Rs.50,000/- towards electricity charges; a total of Rs.6,00,000/- as principal JITENDER KUMAR 2024.04.19 08:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA No.3563 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:052243 amount and interest on the same calculated @ 10% per annum from 01.02.2015 to 30.09.2015, which comes to Rs.40,000/- as also future interest from 01.10.2015 till realization. The defendant-appellant appeared and filed his written statement taking preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, concealment of facts, cause of action etc. On merits it was averred that the defendant-appellant kept on paying the rent regularly to the plaintiff-respondent and that the defendant-appellant had spent an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- on renovation of the restaurant with the consent of the plaintiff-respondent which is to be recovered by him from the plaintiff- respondent. It was further averred that the restaurant, when it was taken on rent, was in a poor condition and there were improvements made by the defendant-appellant. It was further the stand taken that in the end of August 2014 the plaintiff-respondent took forcible possession of the restaurant and there was nothing due from the defendant-appellant. It was further the stand taken that the defendant-appellant was falsely implicated in a criminal case and he remained in custody from 17.06.2014 to 21.08.2014 during which period the plaintiff-respondent used his debit card and withdrew an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from his account to repair the restaurant. Replication was filed in which the averments made in the written statement were controverted and those of the plaint were reiterated.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a suit for recovery alongwith interest, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD JITENDER KUMAR 2024.04.19 08:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA No.3563 of 2023 -3- 2024:PHHC:052243
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the Court ? OPD
5. Relief.
5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2020 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent. Vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2023 the First Appellate Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would contend that the defendant-appellant was in custody in a false case under the NDPS Act and during the period of custody his ATM card was taken by the plaintiff-
respondent who withdrew a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and hence nothing was due towards arrears of rent.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case though a stand taken by the defendant- appellant that the amount stood paid inasmuch as the ATM card of the defendant-appellant was with the plaintiff-respondent who had withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, however, there is no evidence qua the same. The bank statement, which has been shown to the Court and which was exhibited as Ex.D2, only shows some ATM withdrawals, however, the same cannot be co-related with the stand taken by the defendant-appellant. The First Appellate Court had not held the plaintiff-respondent entitled to damages as there was no evidence qua the same and the suit was decreed for a sum of JITENDER KUMAR 2024.04.19 08:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh RSA No.3563 of 2023 -4- 2024:PHHC:052243 Rs.3,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has not been able to convince this Court that the amount stood paid. The defendant-appellant has not denied his relationship or the fact that he was tenant in the premises. The only stand taken by him is that the amount stood paid inasmuch as the same was adjusted against an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which is stated to have been withdrawn by the plaintiff- respondent by way of ATM withdrawals. The same in the absence of any evidence cannot be accepted.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The present appeal being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN ) 18.04.2024 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO JITENDER KUMAR 2024.04.19 08:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh