IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

238 Kirpal Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Narinder Singh ...Respondent(s) The date when the judgment is reserved: 10.02.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced: 13.02.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 13.02.2026 website:

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is judgment pronounced:

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.S.Rangi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Didar Singh and Mr. G.S.Kohli, Advocates for the appellant.

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendant is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of Rs.9,92,835/- on the basis of Pronote and Receipt dated 18.09.2007, has been decreed by both District Courts.

2. It was pleaded in the plaint that on 18.09.2007 defendant/appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,53,000/- from Khem Singh, father of the plaintiff. It was averred that appellant had executed Pronote and Receipt dated 18.09.2007 against the said loan amount. Appellant had also agreed to pay interest of 2% per month. However, Khem Singh, father of the plaintiff had died on 03.09.2008. During his lifetime, Khem Singh had executed a Will dated 12.07.2008 on the strength of which, plaintiff was entitled to recovery of the said amount. It was alleged that plaintiff had visited defendant number of times with a request to repay the amount but to no avail. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 12.02.2009.

3. Upon notice, defendant had appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement; wherein it was admitted that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from Khem Singh. Defendant also admitted that Pronote and Receipt dated 18.09.2007 were executed by him in favour of Khem Singh. However, it was denied that the loan was still outstanding. It was stated that sum of Rs.8,50,000/- was duly repaid by the defendant to Khem Singh on 08.04.2008 in respect of which Writing dated 08.04.2008 was executed by Khem Singh in the presence of the witnesses. It was pointed out in the written statement that in the Writing dated 08.04.2008, Khem Singh had duly mentioned that original Pronote and Receipt were lost and in case original was found, no case would be filed against the defendant as the amount already stood repaid. It was contended that therefore, question of demanding amount by the plaintiff, does not arise. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. In replication, averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint, were reiterated.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:-

“1- Whether defendant borrowed Rs. 8,51,000/- from Khem Singh father of the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt? OPP

2- If issue no.1 is proved, plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest, if so at what rate? OPP

3- Whether suit is bad for non joinder of parties? OPD

4- Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD

5- Relief.”

6. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; issue No. 3 against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff; issue No. 4 against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff; and accordingly vide judgment and decree dated 04.08.2012, the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar had decreed the suit of the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 9% PA w.e.f. 19.9.2007 till the filing of the suit and pendent-lite interest @ 6% PA from the date of filing of the present suit till date of decree and future interest @ 6% PA from the date of decree till the actual realization of decretal amount.

7. The Civil Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed with costs by the learned Additio