IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 M/s Panna Lal Parshotam Kumar, 18-A, Around Additional Mandi, Old Stadium Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor Purshotam Kumar, resident of Old Stadium Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

.......... Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh son of Shri Harcharan Singh, resident of Village and PO Farwain Kalan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

.......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as “First Appellate Court”), whereby an appeal filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as “trial Court”), dismissing the suit for recovery of Rs.2,57,943/- instituted at the instance of appellant-plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

[2] Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff / firm filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,57,943 (i.e. Rs.1,81,650/- being the principal amount and Rs.76,293/- as interest @ 2% per month from the period from

18.05.2015 to 18.03.2017) alongwith future interest at the rate of 2% per month from 18.03.2017 till its realization on the basis of receipt dated 18.05.2015. It was pleaded that respondent-defendant (Jarnail Singh) borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,81,650/- from the appellant-plaintiff for his urgent need on 18.05.2015 on credit basis, while assuring to repay the borrowed amount within six months with interest @ 2% per month and in this regard, respondent-defendant executed a receipt dated 18.05.2015, upon which he put his signature in the presence of witnesses. The appellant-plaintiff demanded his amount from the respondent-defendant, but he failed to repay the same. Hence, the suit was filed.

[2.1] Upon notice, respondent-defendant (Jarnail Singh) appeared and disputed the version made in the plaint, while stating that the appellant-plaintiff was not a registered firm and accordingly not authorized to file the present suit. It was further stated that respondent- defendant used to sell his agriculture yield through the commission agency of the appellant-plaintiff/Firm and whenever respondent- defendant received the amount of sale proceed of his agriculture yield sold through commission agency of appellant-plaintiff/Firm, they used to get the signatures of defendant on the pretext of having received the amount of sale proceed. It was also pleaded that respondent-defendant never borrowed Rs.1,81,650/- from the appellant-plaintiff for his need on 18.05.2015 on credit basis against interest @ 2% per month and never executed the receipt dated 18.05.2015 regarding the loan amount. Also, the appellant-plaintiff had not mentioned about name of the scribe or any witness in the plaint and the receipt in question was bogus, fictitious and result of fraud; which was never read over or scribed in the presence of the respondent-defendant. It was also stated that the signatures of respondent-defendant may have been taken on the pretext of having received the sale proceeds of agriculture yield sold through the agency of appellant-plaintiff; the receipt in question was neither part of account books nor could be termed as promissory note.

[3] Replication was not filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,57,943 as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit of plaintif