IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

118 RSA-992-2021 (O&M)

Reserved on : 20.03.2025 Pronounced on : 08.04.2025 Kamlesh Rani ....Appellant VERSUS Sudesh Kumari ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2020 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby her suit for recovery has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant filed the suit averring that on 19.11.2003 the defendant-respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000 from her followed by Rs.50,000/- on 10.12.2003 and Rs.10,000/- on 15.12.2003 on interest @ 5% pm for her personal necessity. As per the plaintiff-appellant the defendant-respondent had also executed a receipt/writing in the presence of marginal witnesses. The defendant-respondent is stated to have repaid Rs.30,000/- out of the aforesaid amount till May 2007 and agreed to return the entire outstanding amount in two instalments and also executed a written compromise in this regard. According to the plaintiff-appellant at the time of execution of the written compromise, the defendant-respondent took the original receipts of JITENDER KUMAR

2025.04.08 16:04 the borrowed amount from the plaintiff-appellant. A further sum of Rs.5000/- was returned in 2010. Thereafter, no payment was made despite issuance of legal notice to the defendant-respondent. Hence, the suit for recovery. In her written statement the defendant-respondent raised preliminary objections regarding not having come to the court with clean hands, suppression of facts, cause of action, estoppel and limitation. On merits it was the stand taken that the plaintiff-appellant was working as money lender and though the defendant-respondent had received some money from her on interest in 2003, the same had been returned. It was averred that the signatures of the defendant-respondent and her husband had been obtained on some blank paper but the same was not returned when the loan amount was repaid. Replication was filed by the plaintiff-appellant reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying those of the written statement.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.70,000/- alongwith future interest @ 12% per annum as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and he has suppressed the true and material facts from the notice of this court ? OPD

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

2025.04.08 16:04

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct for filing the present suit against the defendant ? OPD

5. Whether the present suit is barred by law under the Limitation Act ? OPD

6. Relief.

4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.07.2016 dismissed the suit holding inter-alia that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2020. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-

appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant. It is urged that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was filed within the period of limitation since Rs.5000/- were returned by the defendant- respondent in 2010 and thus the suit deserved to be decreed in view of the evidence led.

6. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused the record.

7. In the present case both the Courts have held that the plaintiff- appellan