IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) CR-1254-2024 (O&M)

Harpreet Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Dharam Singh ...Respondent (ii) CR-3377-2024 (O&M)

Harpreet Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Dharam Singh ...Respondent Date of Decision: January 30, 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Ms.Poonam Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Parshant Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

These are two revision petitions filed by petitioner Harpreet Singh (defendant before learned trial Court), thereby, assailing order dated 29.01.2024, whereby, his evidence was closed by order and also order dated 15.04.2024, whereby, an application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC, for framing of additional issue, was though allowed and additional issue was framed, whereby the onus to prove was upon him, but however, the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff-

respondent, if any, and for arguments.

The parties are referred to as making appearance before learned trial Court.

The facts germane, to be noticed, are as herein given:-

That, plaintiff Dharm Singh (respondent) had filed a suit against defendant-Harpreet Singh (petitioner), thereby, seeking recovery of Rs.8 lakh, as per the pronote and receipt dated 29.06.2016. As per the version put forth, the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.8 lakh @ 1% per month interest, from the plaintiff, vide pronote and receipt dated 29.06.2016. Further, it is the version that though, plaintiff had been making request to make payment of the aforesaid amount, but to no effect and thereupon, the suit for recovery was filed.

However, in the written statement, the defendant raised various preliminary objections, thereby, disputing the maintainability of the suit and challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit and that the suit is time barred. Furthermore, he has not come to the Court with clean hands and also that he has got no cause of action, to file the present suit and estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit.

On merits, it was denied that defendant availed any loan from the plaintiff, as alleged. Also, it was denied that defendant had executed pronote and receipt, in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, it was categoric claim of the defendant that he had never executed any pronote, in favour of the plaintiff and this Court, has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. In fact, in paragraph No.10, it was asserted that signatures shown in the pronote, are the signatures of the defendant as the same has been managed by the plaintiff, in order to grab money from the defendant.

Keeping in view the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, it is essential to note that when the case was at the stage of recording of the evidence of the petitioner-defendant and no evidence was brought on record, on 29.01.2024, learned trial Court had closed the evidence by and the order passed is herein reproduced:-

“No Dw is present. Perusal of record shows that already eleven effective opportunities have been availed by defendant to conclude his evidence. Undertaking for grant of last opportunity of Ld. Counsel for defendant was recorded on 03.07.2023 and despite that evidence has not been concluded. In these circumstances there is no reasonable justification with this court to adjourn the case again for the same purpose. Hence evidence of defendant is closed by virtue of order dated

03.07.2023.

Now, case is adjourned to 02.02.2024 for rebuttal evidence of plaintiff, if any and/or for arguments.”

The aforesaid order forms the subject matter of challenge in CR-1254-2024.

In the same suit, after the closing of the evidence, the petitioner-

defendant had also filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC, for framing of the additional issue, copy whereof is Annexure P-3. The said application was allowed vide order dated

15.04.2024 and fresh issue 5-A was framed, which reads as herein given:-

“5-A.Whether th