Back
2026 Supreme(HP) 223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA, J.
M/s Lokpriya Buidwell Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Puneet Singh Seehra – Respondent
RSA No. 90 of 2025
Decided On : 16-03-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Recovery of Money
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Admissions by sole defense witness on supplies worth total value, payments received, credits given, and pending balance binding and conclusive. (Para 22-24)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, engaged in furniture supply, filed suit for recovery of Rs.19,90,082/- balance after supplies totaling Rs.2,53,26,507/- during 2010-2011, payments of Rs.2,04,53,513/-, and credits of Rs.30,50,702/- plus additional invoices. Defendant contested claiming full payments adjusted as discounts for substandard goods and inferior quality causing losses. Trial court decreed recovery with 9% interest from 20.01.2012 and costs; affirmed by first appellate court.
Findings of Court:
Defendant liable for Rs.19,90,082/- with future simple interest @ 9% per annum from 20.01.2012 till payment and suit costs.
Issues: Whether plaintiff entitled to recovery of Rs.19,90,082/- with interest and costs; whether suit barred by limitation or lacked cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiff established claim through oral and documentary evidence including invoices and statements unrefuted; defense witness admissions clinched liability; no substantial question of law as concurrent findings neither perverse nor without evidence; limitation satisfied via court-granted extensions. Result : Appeal dismissed.
For the appellant:Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate
For the respondent:Mr. P.S.Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff supplied furniture; defendant owes rs.19,90,082/- after payments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant claims full payment, discounts for defects, limitation bar. (Para 5 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. lower courts decreed suit; appeal at admission stage. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14) |
| 4. plaintiff witnesses affirm supplies, invoices, outstanding dues. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. defendant witness admits liability despite quality complaints. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. suit within limitation due to court extensions. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 7. no substantial question; no interference in second appeal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
ROMESH VERMA, J.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP. dated 13.03.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 56/1 of 2015, titled Puneet Singh Seehra vs. M/S Lokpriya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. , dated 25.11.2022 has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 19,90,082/-alongwith pendent lite and future interest @ 24% per annum before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District solan, HP. on 09.06.2015. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and supply of furniture and leather etc. and he is running his business in the name and style of a proprietorship firm known as ‘Coach Classic’ and is having its office at New Delhi. The defendant is engaged in the business of construction of Hotel etc. The Managing Director of the defendant-company, namely Sh. Harpal Singh approached the plaintiff in the year 2010 at its Delhi Office for supply of various goods to his hotel which was under construction and reached an agreement. In pursuance to the demand as made by the defendant, it was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff supplied the ordered goods as per the requirements and time schedule of the defendant and the goods were duly received by the defendant in good condition.
3. It has been averred in the plaint that plaintiff had raised the following invoices to the defendant:-
| Invoice No.68 dtd 31/3/11 for | Rs.159580/- |
| Invoice No.66 dtd 30/3/11 for | Rs.210080/- |
| Invoice No.65 dtd 30/3/11 for | Rs.252500/- |
| Invoice No.59 dtd 11/3/11 for | Rs.181800/- |
| Invoice No.30 dtd 25/11/10 for | Rs.343400/- |
| Invoice No.28 dtd 2/11/10 for | Rs.363600/- |
| Invoice No.25 dtd 18/9/10 for | Rs.161600/- |
| Invoice No.54 dtd 24/2/11 | for Rs.525200/- |
| Invoice No.55 dtd 24/2/11 for | Rs.63969/- |
| Invoice No.57 dtd 28/2/11 for | Rs.43597/13/- |
| Invoice No.49 dtd 7/2/11 for | Rs.343400/- |
| Invoice No.36 dtd 17/12/10 for | Rs.343400/- |
| Total Rs.29,92,126.13/- | |
4. The plaintiff sold the furniture to the defendant company for the period of 2010-2011. During the said period, the plaintiff made supply of the furniture, total worth Rs. 2,53,26,507/-. Out of this total amount of Rs. 2,53,26,507/- the defendant during the course of business i.e. during the period of 2010-2011 had made total payment of Rs. 2,04,53,513/- to the plaintiff. The same has been duly reflected in the statement of the account of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff as per the understanding with the defendant also gave credit note of Rs. 30,50,702/- to the defendant during the above said period. After credit note to the tune of Rs. 30,50,702/- total recoverable amount, due against the defendant, comes to Rs. 18,22,292/- which has been reflected in the statement of account. Apart from the said mentioned amount, the defendant has also not paid amount of Rs. 1,67,790/- against two invoices. Therefore, total outstanding amount against the defendant is Rs. 18,22,292/-+Rs. 1,67,790/- = Rs. 19,90,082/-. It was further averred that the defendants have failed to pay the above said outstanding amount despite various corresponde
