IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 18.02.2026 Pronounced on: 25.02.2026 Uploaded on: .02.2026 Prem Singh ….Appellant Versus Kulwinder Kaur and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by: Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the respondent no 1.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The appellant-defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal preferred by him was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1991 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Hoshiarpur decreeing the suit of respondent No.1-

plaintiff was affirmed, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The case of the Respondent no1-plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that in the year 1982 defendant No.1 approached her and represented himself to be the Manager and partner of “Imperial Savings” and induced her to invest money in the said concern. Acting upon such representation, the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with defendant No.1, who issued a receipt on behalf of “Imperial Savings” and assured the plaintiff that the amount had been duly deposited in fixed deposit and would carry interest. The plaintiff made the deposit in good faith relying upon the representations and assurances given by defendant No.1 in his capacity as representative of the said concern. It was further pleaded that when the plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 for repayment, defendant No.1 avoided payment on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to return the amount. Consequently, the plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to recover the principal sum of Rs. 15,000/- along with interest accrued thereon, totaling Rs. 25,000/-, from the defendant no. 1.

3. The notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. The suit was contested by appellant-defendant No.1 only. Defendant No.3, having been duly served, was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.03.1988. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 25.10.1989, directed that defendants No.2 to 4 be summoned through publication in the newspaper 'Chardikala' on deposit of process fee and publication charges, and publication was duly effected. The case of appellant-defendant no.1 is that Imperial Savings (India) Ltd. was a duly registered company having its Head Office at New Delhi and a branch office at Hoshiarpur, and that he was merely working there as an employee/Assistant Development Officer. He pleaded that the amount in question was deposited by the plaintiff with the company and that the receipt was issued by him in his official capacity on behalf of the company, and not in his personal capacity. He denied having misrepresented himself or having incurred any individual liability, and maintained that if any amount was payable, the responsibility, if at all, was that of the company alone and not his personal responsibility. The suit was also contested on the ground of limitation and it lacked locus standi as there is no cause of action.

4. Replication was filed. The plaintiff reiterated her claim and controverted the contentions of the appellant. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.

25,000/- as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has got no-locus-standi to file this suit?

OPD.

4. Whether the suit as laid is not maintainable ?OPD

5. Whether the suit cannot be brought against defendant No. 1 in his inidvidual capacity? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD.

7. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the suit? OPD.

8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring and file this suit against defendant no. 1 in his