Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1050 (HP)

Roshan Lal v. Bal Krishan Rawat

2025-05-19

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. 1. By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge(I) Shimla camp at Rohru in Civil Appeal No. 34-R/13 of 2008 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal, District Shimla in Civil Suit No. 30-1 of 2005 has been affirmed and the suit of the respondent herein was decreed for a sum of Rs.77,504/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization. 2. Appellant herein was the defendant before the Court of first instance. The parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,06,569/- on the premise that the defendant had been taking money, material and other articles relating to the apple crop, from the plaintiff. In this manner, the defendant allegedly owed a sum of Rs.77,504/- till 30.08.2002 and duly acknowledged the same by signing the ledger. It was also alleged that the defendant had also agreed to pay interest @ 5% per month. By adding interest @ 5% per month on the amount of Rs.77,504/- the suit was filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,06,569/-. The plaintiff also claimed future interest @ 18% per annum. It was also the case of the plaintiff that before filing of the suit, he had issued a legal notice to the defendant and when the defendant did not respond, the suit was filed. 4. Defendant filed written statement and raised objection as to the non joinder of necessary parties, limitation, maintainability etc. It was submitted that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not have any licence under the Money Lending Act. As regards the signature on the ledger, the defendant explained that the plaintiff had obtained signatures of many persons on a register under the pretext that a resolution was to be passed for opening of a branch of H.P. State Cooperative Bank at Sawra. The defendant categorically denied his liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff. 5. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for amount of Rs.1,06,569/- along with interest as prayed for? OPP. 2. The defendant categorically denied his liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff. 5. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for amount of Rs.1,06,569/- along with interest as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this present suit as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by money lender’s Act as plaintiff has no licence for financing as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief. 6. Issue No.1 was answered in affirmative partially and all other issues were answered in negative. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed as noticed above. 7. The defendant assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 34-R/13 of 2008 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla, H.P. camp at Rohru. Learned First Appellate Court, after affirming the findings rendered by the learned trial Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant. 8. The instant appeal was admitted by this Court on 22.07.2015 on the following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether in the law, facts and circumstances of the case the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.34-R/13 of 2008 dated 17.05.2014 & Judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jubbal, District Shimla in Civil Suit No. 30/1 of 2005 decided on 30.06.2008 is liable to be set aside? 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 10. Both the learned Courts below have rendered concurrent findings of facts. It has been held that the defendant owed a sum of Rs.77,504/- to plaintiff. Plaintiff had issued notice, Ex.PW1/B to the defendant before filing of suit but the defendant had not responded. It has also been held that the defendant had signed ledger Ex.PW1/A and had acknowledged a debt of Rs.77,504/-. 11. It has been held that the defendant owed a sum of Rs.77,504/- to plaintiff. Plaintiff had issued notice, Ex.PW1/B to the defendant before filing of suit but the defendant had not responded. It has also been held that the defendant had signed ledger Ex.PW1/A and had acknowledged a debt of Rs.77,504/-. 11. Both the learned Court below have found the case of the plaintiff to be more probable. The Courts below have thoroughly scanned the evidence on record. Plaintiff had examined himself and had exhibited the copy of ledger as Ex.PW1/A and notice issued to defendant as Ex.PW1/B. In his examination-in-chief, the plaintiff (PW-1) had stated that on the ledger Ex.PW1/A, the defendant had appended his signatures. In the cross-examination of this witness, this part of the statement was not challenged. It was nowhere suggested that the signatures on Ex.PW1/A were not of defendant. 12. Defendant examined himself as his own witness and also examined one Shri Roop Lal as DW-2. He tried to prove that the plaintiff had obtained signatures of many persons including the defendant on a register on the pretext of passing of a resolution for opening of branch of the bank. Ex.PW1/A is a copy of ledger. The defendant has nowhere stated that his signatures were obtained on a ledger and the signature on Ex.PW1/A were not his signatures. The distinction between a ledger and a simple register is not difficult. 13. The defendant has also not responded to the notice issued to him by the plaintiff and for such conduct of the defendant, it can easily be inferred that he had nothing to say in response to the claim of the plaintiff. 14. I have found the findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below to be in consonance with the material adduced on record by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact. 15. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 16. In result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned judgments and decrees are affirmed. No order as to the costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forth with. 17. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.