Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meenakshi Singla And Another vs Ajay Kansal on 19 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055895
RSA-1315-2021(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1315-2021(O&M)
Reserved on:-17.4.2023
Date of pronouncement:-19.4.2023
Meenakshi Singla and another
...Appellants
Versus
Ajay Kansal
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Ajeet Pal Singh Pakka, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Ajay
Kansal had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.6,60,000/- i.e.
Rs.6,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.60,000/- as interest thereon
against Meenakshi Singla - widow and Sahil Singla - minor son of
Naresh Kumar son of Babu Ram, owners of M/s Naresh Beej
Bhandar, Neharu Mandi Road, Baghapurana, District Moga, on the
averments that Naresh Kumar predecessor-in-interest of the
defendants was sole proprietor of the concern M/s Naresh Beej
Bhandar and after his death both the defendants have inherited the
said business; Naresh Kumar deceased was related to plaintiff
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055895
RSA-1315-2021(O&M) -2-
through his wife side and on account of cordial relations, he used to
borrow money from the plaintiff from time to time and return the
same along with interest; on 12.6.2014 Naresh Kumar had borrowed
an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff, which was advanced to
him vide a banker cheque issued by the plaintiff in the name of firm
M/s Naresh Beej Bhandar and an entry in that regard is there in the
statement of account of the plaintiff; Naresh Kumar executed an
affidavit dated 11.6.2014 in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the
loan promising to pay back the said amount within a period of seven
months; unfortunately Naresh Kumar died on 2.6.2015 without
returning the borrowed amount to the plaintiff or interest payable
thereon.
According to the plaintiff, he approached the defendants
several times requesting them to return the loan amount with interest
but to no effect, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to
bring the suit.
2. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed a written
statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections, on
merits denying that Naresh Kumar had borrowed any amount from
the plaintiff or executed any affidavit dated 11.6.2014. According to
the defendants, they have not inherited anything from Naresh Kumar
since Naresh Kumar was not owning any property at the time of
death and the business being run under the name and style of M/s
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055895
RSA-1315-2021(O&M) -3-
Naresh Beej Bhandar had been closed by Naresh Kumar during his
life time since he was unable to do the business on account of his
illness. Defendants denied any liability to pay any amount to the
plaintiff contending that the alleged affidavit set up by the plaintiff is
a forged and fabricated document. In the end, the defendants prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery as
prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present
suit? OPD.
4. Relief.
4. Both the parties were afforded adequate opportunities to
lead their evidence in support of their respective claims.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial
Court of Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Moga by giving issue-wise findings
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated
12.4.2017.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
plaintiff had filed an appeal in District Court at Moga, which was
accepted by learned District Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055895
RSA-1315-2021(O&M) -4-
dated 6.8.2021, resultantly the judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court were set aside and suit of the plaintiff was decreed with
costs for recovery of Rs.6 lakhs/- as principal amount with interest to
the tune of Rs.60,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest @
6% per annum.
7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed
by the District Judge, Moga, the defendants have filed the present
regular second appeal before this Court, notice of which was issued
to the respondent/plaintiff, who has put in appearance through
counsel.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record and I find that there is absolutely no merit in the
present appeal.
9. Learned District Judge, Moga referring to certified copy
of statement of account of the plaintiff Ex.P6 had observed that, that
statement goes to prove that Naresh Kumar deceased had received a
sum of Rs.6 lakhs from the plaintiff vide cheque in the name of his
firm, which fact is corroborated by affidavit Ex.P2. Furthermore, it
has been observed that DW1 Meenakshi Singla wife of Naresh
Kumar deceased in her cross-examination had admitted the bank
transaction and other averments of the plaintiff. Learned District
Judge referring to the evidence has rightly concluded that firm M/s
Naresh Beej Bhandar was functioning during life time of Naresh
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055895
RSA-1315-2021(O&M) -5-
Kumar and after his death, the business is being run by the
defendants. In the affidavit of Naresh Kumar Ex.P2, he had admitted
having raised a loan of Rs.6 lakhs from the plaintiff Ajay Kansal
stating that he would return the same within 7 months. Learned
District Judge, Moga has further observed that even if the affidavit is
not taken into consideration, from the statement of bank account of
the plaintiff Ex.P6 showing that an amount of Rs.6 lakhs had been
debited from the account of plaintiff, as a result of issuance of
cheque for that amount in favour of M/s Naresh Beej Bhandar as well
as admission made by Meenakshi Singla in her cross-examination,
the case of the plaintiff stood proved. The version of the plaintiff was
found to be much more plausible and convincing than that of
defendants, which was considered and rightly rejected. The
defendants having inherited the estate of deceased Naresh Kumar are
to discharge his liabilities also. Learned District Judge, Moga was
justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, since the same were result
of wrong analysis of evidence and erroneous interpretation of law,
which could not be legally sustained.
10. No reason is found to differ with such observations made
by the First Appellate Court and to take a contrary view in light of
the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. No substantial question of law or fact arises in this
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055895
RSA-1315-2021(O&M) -6-
appeal.
12. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal
and do not see any reason to disturb the legal, valid and well
reasoned judgment passed by the District Judge, Moga.
13. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
Since the main appeal stands dismissed, the
miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
19.4.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055895
6 of 6
