IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (112 Date of Decision:-12.02.2026 GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANR … Appellants Versus BHIM SAIN ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

CM-12846-C-2025 The prayer stands allowed, as sought, subject to all just exceptions in accordance with law.

CM-12845-C-2025 For the reasons set forth in the application, the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

Main Appeal

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after referred to as “RSA”) has been instituted assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2025 passed in Civil Appeal, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, allowed the appeal and consequently set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2018 rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh (Karnal).

2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for ₹

recovery of 8,82,623/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 06.07.2017, on the averment that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of a commission agent and that the defendants had been selling their agricultural produce through the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that during the crop year 2016–2017, the defendants borrowed the following amounts from the plaintiff:–

(a) `1,00,000/- 21.4.16. (b) `85,000/- 23.4.16. (c) `1,20,000/- 25.4.16. (d) Rs.70,000/- 26.4.16. (e) `1,25,000/- 8.7.16. (f) `50,000/- 12.9.16. (g) `3,55,000/- 4.11.16. (h) `52,474/- 21.11.16 Total `9,57,474/-

And sold crop of `6,70,474/- vide transactions detailed as under- :-

(a) `128325/- paddy sold on 1.10.16. (b) `154740/- paddy sold on 10.10.16. (c) `38260/- paddy sold on 12.10.16. (d) `167350/- paddy sold on 18.10.16. (e) `99255/- paddy sold on 12.11.16. (f) `82544/- paddy sold on 19.11.16.

Balance `2,87,000/- was due on 21.11.2016 ₹

3. An amount of 2,87,000/- was outstanding as on 21.11.2016. Thereafter, the defendants received further sums from the plaintiff through ₹ ₹

cheques, namely 1,00,000/- on 02.12.2016, 25,000/- on 21.12.2016, and ₹ ₹

4,00,000/- on 06.03.2017, as a result whereof a total sum of 8,12,000/-

remained due and payable by the defendants. Upon calculation and debiting of interest up to 06.07.2017, the outstanding amount aggregated to ₹

8,82,621/-.

3.1. It was further averred that the defendants subsequently ceased to sell their agricultural produce through the plaintiff and, despite repeated demands, failed to liquidate the outstanding liability, thereby necessitating the institution of the present suit.

4. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, on the plea that Defendant No. 1 had sold agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff ₹

amounting to 82,544/- on 19.11.2016. It was asserted that the plaintiff had issued the following receipts in respect of the said transactions: receipt ₹

dated 12.11.2016 at the rate of 2,445/- per quintal; receipt dated ₹ ₹

29.07.2016 at 1,360/- per quintal; receipt dated 10.10.2016 at 1,340/- per ₹

quintal; receipt dated 12.10.2016 at 1,350/- per quintal; and receipt dated ₹

09.10.2016 at 1,040/- per quintal.

5. It was further pleaded that Defendant No. 1 had requested the plaintiff to release the sale proceeds of the crop so sold. The plaintiff allegedly represented that, owing to demonetization, he was not in possession of sufficient cash and assured that the amount would be transferred into the defendants’ accounts through cheques. According to the defendants, the cheques issued were towards payment of the sale consideration of the agricultural produce and not by way of any loan or advance. The account statements and records prepared by the respondent/plaintiff were alleged to be false and fabricated, and it was specifically denied that any amount was due or payable by the defendants.

6. On the basis of the respective