Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh vs M/S Aggarwal Traders on 5 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000600
126 2024:PHHC:000600
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular Second Appeal No. 3993 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.01.2024
Ajaib Singh
... Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s Aggarwal Traders
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
CM-14256-C-2023
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
and delay of six days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-14255-C-2023
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
and delay of 85 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
RSA-3993-2023
3. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab and
Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the
Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in
Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC
157.
4. This regular second appeal has been filed to assail the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000600
2024:PHHC:000600
correctness of the findings of facts arrived at by the First Appellate Court,
which, in turn, has reversed the judgment of the trial Court.
5. The First Appellate Court has decreed the suit for recovery of
₹54,400/- as principal amount along with the interest @ 6% per annum
during the pendency of the suit as well as future interest.
6. The plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit on the basis of books of
accounts. The plaintiff is a Commission Agent. It was alleged that the
appellant borrowed a loan from the plaintiff while agreeing to sell his
agricultural produce through the plaintiff's firm. However, he has neither
paid the amount nor settled the account. While filing the written statement,
the defendant denied any loan. However, whenever he had taken a small
amount as advance, the same was adjusted against the next crop brought by
him. It was further submitted that in the month of May, 2012, the defendant
sold his wheat crop through the plaintiff's firm and at that time, the plaintiff
obtained his signatures in his daily diary. The plaintiff, in order to prove his
case, produced the account books as well as the entry of the loan of
₹54,400/- in the month of May, 2012. Though the trial Court dismissed the
suit, however, the First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence,
decreed the suit.
7. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
signatures of the appellant are different from his standard signatures. He
submits that the First Appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the appellant.
9. On the request of the Court, the learned counsel representing
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000600
2024:PHHC:000600
the appellant has produced a photocopy of the written statement filed by the
appellant before the trial Court. While filing reply to para 6 of the plaint, the
appellant has admitted that the signatures were obtained by the plaintiff in
his daily diary. Thus, the appellant has admitted his signatures. Moreover,
in the written statement, it has been admitted that he used to borrow amount
from the plaintiff.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, there is no
substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the
appellant. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
11. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
January 05, 2024
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000600
3 of 3
