##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.119 of 2023

Date of Decision : 30.12.2025

Joginder Singh Sahi (deceased) through LRs.

…… Appellants

Versus

Rajesh Sood

……Respondent

Coram: t

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

Whether approved for reporting?1 u

For the Appellants : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

hThe Appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the

Codge of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and

decree dated 18.11.2019, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at

Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.29-

D/XIII/2019 titled Joginder Singh Sahi (deceased) through LRs. vs. Rajesh

Sood, whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2018, passed by

Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra, in Civil Suit

No.39/2014, have been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment,

the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were

referred before learned Trial Court.

1

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

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 06:26:08 :::CIS

2

3. The facts germane to the filing of the suit, briefly, are that the

plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for recovery of ₹13,00,000/- alonP g with

interest @ 12% per annum from the date of an agreement dated

14.09.2012 till realisation. The plaintiff’s case was that the defendants-

appellants, having disclosed that a bank loan for co nstructing their house

was exhausted and the construction remaineod incomplete, requested a

loan of ₹6,50,000/- for further work, promising repayment within one year.

An agreement to this effect was executed on 14.09.2012, acknowledging

receipt of the said sum. u

4. The agreement stipulated that if the defendants failed to

repay within one year, they would be liable to pay double the amount, i.e.,

₹13,00,000/-. Upon the expiry of the said period on 14.09.2013, the

plaintiff approached the defendants for payment, received assurances but

eventually, in November 2013, the defendants refused to pay. A legal

notice dated 27.01.2014 was served, which yielded no result, leading to

H the suit. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement,

raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi,

estoppel, maintainability, suppression of facts, limitation, valuation and

jurisdiction. On merits, they denied ever approaching the plaintiff for a

loan, questioned the plaintiff’s financial capacity to lend, and specifically

denied the execution of the agreement dated 14.09.2012. They alleged

that the agreement was fraudulent, their signatures were obtained without

reading or explaining the contents, and that they had never received any

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 06:26:08 :::CIS

3

amount from the plaintiff. They further pleaded that the agreement had

expired. The plaintiff filed a replication, reiterating the plaint averments.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed

the following issues on 23.11.2015:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of ₹ 13,00,000/- (thirteen Lacs)

with future interest @ Rs. 12% per afnnum from the execution of

agreement dated 14.09.2012 till the realization of the due amount as

prayed for? OPP. o

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

3. Whether plaintiff has no locuts-standi to file the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD.

5. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred under provision of Limitation Act? OPD.

6. Whether suiot has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee?

OPD.

7. WheCther this Court has no jurisdiction to pursue the present suit? OPD.

8. Relief.

6. After recording evidence and hearing arguments, the learned

Trial Court decided the issues as follows: Issue No.1: Partly Yes; Issue

iNo.2: No; Issue No.3: No; Issue No.4: No; Issue No.5: No; Issue No.6:

No; Issue No.7: No; and consequently,