2025:HHC:28288 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 475 of 2016 Reserved on: 13.8.2025 Date of decision: 21.8.2025.

Nirmal Chand Rana ...Appellant Versus M/s Ajay & Company ...Respondents Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice tSatyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1Yes.

For the appellant: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, For the respondent: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral):

h This Regular Second Appeal has been filed gagainst the judgment and decree dated 20.6.2016, passed iby the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No.

23 of 2014, whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)

Court No.1, in Civil Suit No. 91 of 2007 has been affirmed.

2. The defendant is in appeal against the decree of Rs. 2,48,975/- along with future interest at the rate of 9%, concurrently passed by both the courts. The parties, for Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

the sake of convenience shall hereafter be referred to by the same status, as they held before the originaPl Court. 3. The plaintiff claims the suit amount on the premise that it was carrying business of Karyana Goods and had supplied to the defendant goods worth Rs. 2,30,000/- on 24.4.2006. It was claimed that in order to discharge his liability, defendant had issued a cheque dated 24.4.2006 in the sum of Rs. 2,30,000/-, drawn at Punjab National Bank, in favour of the plaintiff but the said cheque was dishonoured on presentation. Plaintiff claimed to have again approached the defendant and the dhefendant had entered into an agreement dated 12.7.2006 gwith the plaintiff and promised to make the payment iwithin one month, failing which, he had promised to pay double the amount. As per plaintiff, since the defendant did not fulfill his promise, plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant dated 13.10.2006, which was replied by the defendant by concocting the facts.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 2,48,975/- as suit amount including principal amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- and interest at the rate of 9%

from 12.7.2006 to 12.6.2007. The plaintiff claimed that the cause of action to file the suit had arisen onP 24.4.2006, when the goods were allegedly supplied and cheque was issued, thereafter on 12.7.2006, when an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant and lastly on 13.10.2006, when the notice was served upon the defendant.

5. The defendant by way of written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. Defendant submitted that he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- only and since he had paid the amount to the phlaintiff in cash, the cheque had been rendered without glegal liability. It was alleged that the plaintiff had forged ithe cheque and had made addition and alterations therein.

As per defendant, the plaintiff had added the word and figures rupees two lacs in the original cheque of Rs. 30,000/- to make it a cheque in the sum of Rs. 2,30,000/-. Defendant also denied his signatures on the cheque at the places, which purportedly acknowledged additions made in the cheque.

6. Thus, though the defendant admitted to have business dealing with the plaintiff but had Pdenied the transaction in question to have taken place.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

“i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.

2,48,975/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum?

OPP.

ii) Whetherr the defendant was under liability to the sum of Rs. 30,000/- and the same has been paid by cash, the cheque issued by the defendant was forged for consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/-? OPP.

iii) Relief.”

Issue No.1 was answered in affirmative and issue No.2 was answered in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed, as noticed above.

8. The learned trial Court held that the defendant had failed to prove the addition and alteration in the cheque to have been made by the plaintif