Hardeep Singh vs Manjot Kaur And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 20075 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147102




          Neutral Citation No:2023:PHHC:147102
RSA-2491-2019(O&M)                                                      1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

137                                           RSA-2491-2019(O&M)
                                              Date of Decision: 20.11.2023

Hardeep Singh                                               ....Appellant

                                    Versus

Manjot Kaur and others                                      ....Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:      Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate
              for the appellant.

              Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate
              for the respondents.

               *****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)

CM-6739-C-2019

Present application has been filed under Section 151

C.P.C. for seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in re-filing the

present appeal.

For the reasons enumerated in the application, the same

is allowed and the delay of 8 days in re-filing the present appeal is

condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

RSA-2491-2019

1. Present regular second appeal has been filed by the

plaintiff-Hardeep Singh against the concurrent findings of dismissal of

civil suit.

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147102

Neutral Citation No:2023:PHHC:147102

2. The short prayer in the civil suit is that plaintiff withdrew

an amount of Rs.14,95,000/- from his savings bank account

No.084210000011931 through cheque No.191191 (Ex.PW4/2) dated

08.11.2011. It was pleaded that thereafter, on 07.12.2011 an amount of

Rs.10,50,000/- was handed over to all the six defendants in cash in

presence of PW2-Shashi Pal Sharma and PW3- Jasmeet Singh.

Despite of asking to return the amount of Rs.10,50,000/-, same is not

being returned by the defendants.

3. Defendants were proceeded against ex-parte before the

Courts below. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

without there being any opposition to the pleadings as well as to the

oral evidence in the shape of affidavit Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW3/A, suit

ought to have been decreed by the Courts below.

4. This Court has noticed the fact regarding the marriage of

brother of the plaintiff which was fixed three days prior to the giving

of the money to the defendants. Learned trial Court recorded its

finding that in the absence of any evidence, civil suit is not

deecreable and thus, dismissed.

Said finding has been affirmed by learned First Appellate

Court also.

5. Even before this Court also, Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma,

learned counsel for the appellant while reading out the contents

mentioned in the plaint submits that the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- was

handed over to all the defendants collectively at one point of time.

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147102

Neutral Citation No:2023:PHHC:147102

While reading plaint, learned counsel for the appellant could not

pointed out the fact that to whom in specific, the amount of

Rs.10,50,000/- was handed over. Even otherwise also the purpose

behind withdrawal of the amount of Rs.14,95,000/- has not been

explained by the plaintiff. In the statement of PW2-Shashi Pal

Sharma, PW3- Jasmeet Singh and PW-5 Ajay Kumar ( three

witnesses), while deposing their oral version, some attempt has been

made to explain that which of the defendant retained the cash amount

in parts.

6. To the view point of this Court, in the absence of any

mentioning/explanation in the plaint, such deposition is nothing but

an improvement in the original pleadings and that too without any

corroboration. This Court has also noticed the fact that purpose of

withdrawal of Rs.14,95,000/- is not explained by the plaintiff because

it was withdrawn a month prior to the alleged handing over of it to the

defendants.

Moreover, there is no explanation in the plaint regarding

the balance amount used by the plaintiff apart Rs.10,50,000/-.

Obviously, there was a marriage function in the family of the plaintiff

that too of his brother, so, reason of withdrawal of the amount can be

well understood.

However, handing over the amount to all the defendants

collectively seems to be completely improbable version. Therefore,

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147102

Neutral Citation No:2023:PHHC:147102

strict proof of entrustment of the amount to the defendants with

certain specification was required to be introduced in the plaint itself.

7. In the absence of any reliable and admissible evidence,

suit has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. No question of

law much less substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal

for the consideration of this Court. Consequently, the impugned

judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below are hereby

maintained and the present appeal stands dismissed.

                                               [SANJAY VASHISTH]
November 20, 2023                                   JUDGE
rashmi
      Whether speaking/reasoned                        yes/no
      Whether reportable?                              yes/no

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147102

4 of 4