Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjit Singh vs Baljit Singh on 11 November, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-523-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.11.2025
HARJIT SINGH .... Appellant
VERSUS
BALJIT SINGH .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for
Mr. A.S. Pannu, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
defendant-appellant challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.2017 and by the First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2019.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of ₹1,06,000 (₹1,00,000 being the
principal amount and ₹6,000 being the interest @ 9% per annum) and future
interest @ 9% per annum. The case as set up by the plaintiff-respondent was
that the defendant-appellant approached the plaintiff-respondent and offered
that he wanted to sell the bus along with its route permit. The plaintiff-
respondent agreed to purchase the same. The defendant-appellant informed
the plaintiff-respondent that the bus was free from all encumbrances. The
plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant moved a joint application on
RSA-523-2021 (O&M) -2-
10.09.2009 for transferring the bus with the route permit in favour of the
plaintiff-respondent. It was further the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent
that AC 2nd Grade, Bhawanigarh took the bus in custody in January 2013 for
putting the same on sale on the directions of the Additional District
Judge/MACT Sangrur for recovery of compensation awarded in claim petition
No.19 of 20.04.2006 decided on 12.04.2008. It was only then that the plaintiff-
respondent came to know that on 19.09.2003 the bus had caused an accident
and two boys had lost their lives in the said accident. The legal representatives
of the deceased had filed the claim petition against the defendant-appellant
herein being the owner of the bus. The defendant-appellant had also
challenged the award dated 12.04.2008 before this Court and before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, all the said facts were concealed from the
plaintiff-respondent at the time when the offer to sell the bus was made by the
defendant-appellant. It was further the case set up that the plaintiff-respondent
met the decree holder i.e. the mother of the deceased boy who agreed that if
the plaintiff-respondent made a part payment of ₹1,00,000, she would have
no objection if the bus was released by the Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff-
respondent paid an amount of ₹1,00,000 to the decree holder through bank
draft No.855013 dated 25.01.2013 and got the bus released. When the
plaintiff-respondent demanded the amount of ₹1,00,000 from the defendant-
appellant, he flatly refused. Hence, the suit.
3. Written statement was filed by the defendant-appellant averring
therein that he never signed any papers for transfer of the bus bearing No.PB-
13E-6211 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and that he never signed Form-
RSA-523-2021 (O&M) -3-
30, Form-29 or the affidavit dated 28.10.2010. It was further averred that all
the documents had been forged and that the defendant-appellant had filed an
application dated 22.08.2012 before the SSP Sangrur. On 01.11.2010 the
defendant-appellant was admitted in DMC Ludhiana due to fracture on right
femur.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff and defendant moved a joint
application on 10.09.2009 for transferring the bus as well
as route permit in favour of the plaintiff ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
recovery of Rs.1,06,000/- along with future interest as
prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether Form No.30, Form No.29 and affidavit
dated 28.10.2010 are forged documents ? OPD
4. Relief.
5. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated
11.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the defendant-
appellant before the First Appellate Court which appeal was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 16.11.2019. Hence, the present regular second
appeal by the defendant-appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would contend that
the defendant-appellant never signed the documents and that all the
documents were forged and fabricated.
RSA-523-2021 (O&M) -4-
7. Heard.
8. In the present case both the Courts have concurrently found that
the application dated 10.09.2009 was jointly filed by the plaintiff-respondent
and the defendant-appellant for transferring the bus in question in the name of
the plaintiff-respondent. The witnesses examined by the plaintiff-respondent
duly proved the execution of Form-29 by the defendant-appellant in favour of
the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent also proved the payment of
₹1,00,000 to the claimants. The defendant-appellant herein failed to lead any
evidence to show that the documents were forged and fabricated.
Overwhelming evidence was produced by the plaintiff-respondent to prove
his case in accordance with law. No evidence was led to the contrary. In view
thereof, no fault can be found with the impugned judgments and decrees
passed by both the Courts concerned.
9. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,
arises in the present regular second appeal. This Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the
Courts concerned. In view thereof, the present regular second appeal being
devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
11.11.2025 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
