Read Order: Smt. Sushila v. Karan Singh 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 17, 2022: While dealing with an appeal against concurrent findings recorded by lower courts in a matter involving a suit for recovery, the Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the scope of interference of the High Court in the order or decision of the lower court in the regular second appeal is limited.  

Originally, a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-appellant claiming that he (the plaintiff) advanced a friendly loan to the defendant and her husband, by the way of demand draft in 2007. The amount was liable to be returned along with interest @ 15% per annum.

The defendant contested the suit with the assertion that there was no loan and that in fact, the defendant and her husband were to purchase a property for which money was required to be paid to their vendor. Thus, they paid a sum of Rs 15 lakhs in cash to the plaintiff to deposit in his account and thereafter the plaintiff returned the amount by way of demand draft. 

To support her case, the defendant examined witnesses and produced a sale deed while the plaintiff produced his own bank account statement to prove that the assertion of the defendant was factually incorrect and there was no entry of the said amount,as was alleged by the defendant.

The suit was decreed by both the lower courts, hence, the original defendant approached the High Court impugning the decree. 

The appellant’s counsel argued that in the absence of any document, the courts below erred in decreeing the suit. While referring to the statement of one Dhruvpal, the counsel submitted that the said amount was deposited by the plaintiff in his own account in the presence of Dhruvpal.

After having considered rival submissions, the Court observed that the defendant failed to prove that she or her husband handed over the said amount to the plaintiff and also that the aforesaid amount was deposited by the plaintiff in his own account. The Court also observed that the defendant failed to produce a counter file of the same. 

Furthermore, the Court stated that the defendant failed to prove that there was a deposit of the aforementioned sum by her or her husband in the account of the plaintiff. The Court added that it became evident on a careful reading of the statement of Dhruvpal that he made a bald assertion without corroborating the same with the documentary evidence.

Thus, the regular second appeal was dismissed.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment