IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement :- 22.09.2025 M/s Durga Dass Naresh Kumar and another ...Appellants Versus Gurdeep Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate for the respondent/caveator.

***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Bathinda vide which the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda has been reversed.

2. Briefly, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,19,000/- on the grounds that he advanced a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- to respondent-defendant No. 2 as loan and defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1% per month. Writing dated 01.12.2018 was executed at the time of entering into loan transaction. The same is in the hand of Mr. Karan son of defendant Naresh Kumar and has signed by Naresh Kumar and Karan. Defendants failed to repay the loan amount along with interest, hence the suit. Suit was contested by the appellant-defendants denying the loan transaction or execution of any writing dated 01.12.2018 and alleged that the writing is forged and fabricated. When plaintiff examined himself and a witness, defendant absented himself and was proceeded against ex-parte and after hearing arguments the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed, appeal was preferred by respondent-plaintiff. The same was allowed by the learned District Judge. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed in appeal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendants.

4. During the course of preliminary hearing respondent-plaintiff put in appearance on the basis of caveat filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

Record of Courts below was called for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. As regards the scope of second appeal, it is now a settled proposition of law that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 of CPC. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs and others V/s Chandrika and others’, (2016)6 SCC 157, followed by the judgments in the case of ‘Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR V/s Ram Parkash and others’ (2019) 11 SCC 317 and ‘Satender and others V/s Saroj and others’, 2022(12) Scale 92. Relying upon the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, no question of law is required to be framed.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge on the grounds that the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate that learned Civil Judge, Bathinda has recorded findings after properly appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record and that plaintiff has failed to examine any eye witness of the transaction or scribe of the writing dated 01.12.2018 and that he failed to prove existence of any business relations between the parties and production of receipt Ex. PW1/B alone is not sufficient to saddle defendant with liability. The learned District Judge has failed to notice that testimony of the witness is to be read as a whole and not in bits and pieces. The learned District Judge has committed a mistake while recroding a finding that appellants has not denied the averments made by the plaintiff with regard to writing dated 01.12.2018 whereas in para Nos. 5 and 7 of the written statement defendants has categorically denied the loan transaction and has claimed that receipt is false and forged document. The finding recorded by the learned District Judge that defendants have not denied the execution of the document Ex. PW1/B and th