2025:HHC:44240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

RSA No.255/2025

Date of Decision: 12.12.2025

Mast Ram Pathak

.....Appellant.

Versus

Jagdish Chandel …..Respondent.

Coram r

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the Appellant : Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Nemo

Bipin Ch ander Negi, Judge (oral).

The Appellant, before this Court by filing this appeal under

section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Solan, Camp at Arki H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2023 decided on 23.08.2024, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge Arki, District, Solan H.P. in Civil Suit No. 197/1 of 2016, titled as Jagdish Chandel vs. Mast Ram Pathak has

been affirmed.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. The parties to the appeal, hereinafter for the sake of convenience, shall be referred to in the same manner as described in the judgment of the ld. Trial Court.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this second appeal, as culled from the record, is that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of ₹ 6,22,646/- along with future compounding interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The plaintiff's foundational case, as pleaded, was that the defendant-appellant, being his neighbour and having healthy relations, used to borrow money for the smooth running of his business.

4. It was averred that the defendant ultimately failed to return the borrowed amounts and, consequently, on 22.06.2014, executed a pronote/agre ement in the presence of witnesses. By this document, the defendant undertook to repay a consolidated borrowed amount of ₹ 5 Lakh in installments of ₹ 30,000/- each after every four months. A further condition was stipulated that upon default in payment of any installment, the defendant would transfer his house, landed property, and jewellery to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that despite the execution of this document and the grant of sufficient time, the defendant did not repay any amount, thereby incurring an additional liability to pay compounding interest @ 10% per annum on the principal sum.

5. The suit was vigorously contested by the defendant by way of a written statement. While admitting acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant denied the entirety of the plaintiff's substantive case. He specifically denied having borrowed any loan of ₹ 5 Lakh, executing the document dated 22.06.2014, or agreeing to the repayment schedule. Furthermore, the defendant raised a host of preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the suit on grounds of want of cause of action, estoppel, concealment of material facts, lack of locus standi on the part of the plaintiff, and improper valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee. The plaintiff filed a replication, thereby joining issue and reasserting the claims made in the plaint.

6. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed eight issues on 04.07.2017.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of ₹ 6,22,646/- alongwith future bank interest i.e compounding interest @ 10% per annum thereon from hthe date i.e. 07.10.2016 till final realization of the total amount along with cost, as alleged? ….OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? ...OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? ...OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit due to his own acts, conducts, deeds and acquiescences? ...OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts?

...OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? ...OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee? ...OPD

8. Relief

7. T