The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit filed by a competent person within the limitation period, based on misrepresentation and financial loss, can be decreed for recovery.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Briefly stated facts of the case as can be gathered from the perusal of the record are that plaintiff - Punjab State Transmission Corporation Ltd., Patiala had purchased house constructed on the plot of land measuring 41/2 marlas having dimensions 30' x 40' forming part of khewat/khatauni No.199/536, khasra No.6//15/3-18, 16/7-19 to the extent of 9/474 share vide a registered sale deed dated 30.6.1998 and it had also purchased plot of land measuring 11 marlas bearing khewat/khatauni No.199/536, khasra No.6//15/3-18, 16/7-10 to the extent of 11/237 share vide registered sale deed dated 9.7.1998, respectively for the sum of Rs. 4,99,500/- each; that at the time of execution of the sale deeds, the defendant represented that the said property in question was free from all encumbrances and no dispute for the same was pending in any Court; that in the sale deeds it was mentioned that if any defect was found in the title, then the defendant would be personally liable to make good the loss to the plaintiff; that later on both the sale deeds were cancelled by the Civil Court and plaintiff lost the possession of the plots in question. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had cheated it and played a fraud with it; that the plaintiff had suffered a huge financial loss in the process and the defendant was bound to return the sale prices of both the sale deeds along with stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as registration fee as well as Rs. 10,000/- as miscellaneous charges; the total amount worked out being Rs. 10,79,000/-. The plaintiff asked the defendant to pay the said amount to it and had got issued a legal notice dated 30.7.2008 upon the defendant but to no effect, as such, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery against the defendant in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Samana.

2. On getting notice, the defendant had appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections including one that the suit being time barred, as such not maintainable and further plaintiff having no cause of action to bring the suit and not approaching the Court with clean hands etc. the competence of the plaintiff to bring the suit was also disputed; though execution of sale deeds was admitted. According to the defendant, the sale deeds in question were neither cancelled nor set aside by any Court and the plaintiff was still in possession of the property sold to him. In the end, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery Rs. 10,79,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum? OPP.

2. Whether suit is filed by duly authorized and competent person? OPP.

3. Whether suit has been filed within limitation? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands? OPD.

5. Relief.

4. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff had examined Sh. Gajinder Singh, Addl. Asstt. Engineer as PW1 and Sh. Ram Lal, registration Clerk as PW2.

5. On the other hand, the defendant got recorded his statement as DW1.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, issue No.3 against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff, issue No.4 against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Resultantly, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2011, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 10,79,000/- with costs with future interest @ 6% from the date of decree till its realization.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Patiala, which was assigned to Additional District Judge, Patiala, who vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.2013 dismissed it.

8. The defendant is feeling dissatisfied with the said jud