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
integrity of this order/judgment
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
integrity of this order/judgment
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
integrity of this order/judgment
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
integrity of this order/judgment
