Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajmer Singh vs Harish Gaur on 9 November, 2022
RSA-494-2022 (O&M) -1-
104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-494-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision : 09.11.2022
Ajmer Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
Harish Gaur ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
Present: Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Appellant (plaintiff) has preferred regular second appeal to
challenge the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2021 passed in Civil appeal
No.RBT-01-2020 by first appellate Court, affirming the judgment and decree
dated 05.12.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panipat,
whereby his suit for recovery of Rs.40,00,000/-, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
plaintiff/appellant had engaged himself in a business through partnership firm,
M/s AHN Associates, and were supplying machines on rent used for the
purposes of construction of buildings etc. He submits that later on, the said
firm was dissolved by way of a written instrument dated 18.02.2009 (Ex.P-1)
and as per this writing, defendant-Harish Gaur had agreed to pay him a sum of
Rs.20 lacs apart from fulfilling other conditions. He submits that the plaintiff
had successfully proved his case for recovery of amount against the defendant,
but the Courts have dismissed the suit only on the issue of limitation by
holding the suit as time barred. He submits that the appellant also faced
criminal prosecution through FIR No.4 dated 05.01.2010 registered
1 of 3
RSA-494-2022 (O&M) -2-
under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, which was lodged by defendant and
the appellant had filed a petition before this Court through CRM-M-23433-
2012 for quashing of the FIR, wherein this Court had granted liberty to the
appellant to produce and prove the dissolution deed before the trial Court. He
submits that since the appellant/plaintiff was pursing his remedy in accordance
with law, therefore, the benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 deserves to
be extended to him. He submits that the appellate court has also failed to
appreciate the evidence on record carefully while affirming the judgment and
decree dated 05.12.2018 passed by the trial Court. He submits that the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court warrants
interference by this Court.
After hearing learned counsel and considering the evidence on
record, this Court finds that the cause of action as per the own case of the
plaintiff accrued to him in February 2009, when the dissolution
deed/agreement (Ex.P-1) between the parties was reduced into writing, but
concededly the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 2014. The argument that the
appellant was pursuing his remedy pursuant to the criminal case lodged by
defendant to seek benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 is apparently
misconceived, as in the said proceedings, the prayer of the appellant was for
quashing of the FIR and not for recovery of the amount from defendant. Thus,
the benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 in computing the period of
limitation could not be extended to the plaintiff, who has failed to explain the
delay in filing the suit. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the
material findings returned by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate
Court are based upon proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from
2 of 3
RSA-494-2022 (O&M) -3-
perversity. Thus, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts do not
call for any interference, as the appeal does not involve any substantial
question of law.
No other argument was raised.
Resultantly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby
dismissed.
Since the main case is dismissed on merits, pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, are also dismissed.
(MANOJ BAJAJ)
JUDGE
09.11.2022
vanita
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
