IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :22.04.2026 VIRENDER SINGH ... APPELLANT VERSUS SUBE SINGH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–defendant, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.11.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul, ₹

whereby the suit filed by the respondent–plaintiff for recovery of 63,000/- along with interest of Rs. 20,160/- was decreed. Appellant-defendant is also challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul, vide which first appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Respondent-plaintiff had sought recovery of Rs. 63,000/- along with interest of Rs. 20,160/- on the ground that both the respondent-plaintiff and the defendant are residents of Village Naudi and are well known to each other. That the appellant-defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 63,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff on 19.04.2016 and, in acknowledgment thereof, had duly executed a pronote and receipt of even date in the presence of witnesses, assuring repayment of loan taken by appellant-defendant from respondent- plaintiff as agreed. The loan was stated to carry interest @ 2% per annum. However, the appellant-defendant failed to repay the said amount along with interest and, despite service of legal notice dated 13.07.2017, defendant refused to make payment of principal amount as well as interest amount to the respondent-plaintiff. Hence, the respondent-plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of amount payable to appellant-defendant along with interest.

3. On notice, the appellant-defendant appeared and contested the suit by raising various preliminary objections with regard to its maintainability etc. On merits, the execution of the pronote and receipt dated 19.04.2016 was specifically denied. The same were stated to be forged and fabricated documents. It was pleaded that the appellant-defendant had never executed any such documents nor received the alleged loan amount of Rs. 63,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff. However, the appellant-defendant admitted receipt of the legal notice. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

₹

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery 83,160/- as alleged in the plaint from defendant? OPP

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

3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action & locus standi to file the suit in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

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

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

8. Whether the defendant is entitled for special cost? OPD

9. Relief.”

5. In order to prove his case, the respondent-plaintiff examined Amar Singh, the scribe of the pronote, as PW-1; Suresh, one of attesting witness, as PW-4; Dharampal, the second attesting witness, as PW-3; and respondent- plaintiff himself appeared as PW-2. The respondent-plaintiff duly placed on record the pronote and receipt as Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C. He further examined Suresh Chand, clerk of his counsel, as PW-5, who proved the legal notice as Ex. PW-5/A and postal receipt as Ex. PW-5/B.

6. In rebuttal, the appellant-defendant appeared as DW-1 but did not tender any documentary evidence in support of his defence. The learned Court of first instance, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, and Issue Nos. 2 to 8 were also decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and against the appellant-