In an appeal against concurrent orders of the Trial and Appellate Courts, the Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to a decree for recovery of Rs. 5,16,000/- arising from a dishonoured cheque for a loan.
Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:HHC:4941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
RSA No. 139 of 2023 Decided on: 08.07.2024
Roshan Lal .…Appellant Versus Manoj Kumar …Respondents Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below in terms whereof, the suit for recovery filed by the respondents has been decreed by the learned Trial Court for an amount of Rs.5,16,000/- alongwith pendent lite and further interest and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court has been dismissed.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
pendent lite and future interest, on the contention that the parties were well known to each other and having cordial relations. In the first week of February, 2014, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to lend him an amount of Rs.4.00 Lac without interest, for construction of his house. The defendant promised to repay the said loan within one month. It was proclaimed by the defendant that he had applied for withdrawal of General Provident Fund from his department i.e. HPPWD, which was likely to be released within one month. The plaintiff keeping in view his relationship with the defendant, lent an amount of Rs.4.00 Lac to the defendant. However, the defendant refused to repay the same as promised. On 15.03.214, the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked him to repay the borrowed amount of Rs.4.00 Lac as per his promise, but instead of repaying the said amount in cash, the defendant issued one cheque amounting to Rs.4.00 Lac, dated 15.03.2014, drawn at Punjab National Bank, Dhalpur, Kullu, of his account No. 3378000105048146 and assured the plaintiff that the cheque would be honoured on its presentation. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Thereafter, the plaintiff intimated the defendant about the dishonour of the cheque. The defendant
3
delayed the payment of the borrowed amount on one pretext or the other and after that the plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendant. As despite several requests of the plaintiff, the defendant had not made good the payment of the borrowed amount, hence the suit.
4
Issue No. 1 : Yes Issue No. 2: No Issue No. 3: No Issue No. 4: No Issue No. 5: Suit decreed as per operative part of the judgment.
5
the plaintiff had lent an amount of Rs.4.00 Lac to the defendant on his request and as defendant failed to repay the said amount, in lieu thereof, he issued a cheque to the plaintiff which was dishonoured by the banker of the defendant for want of sufficient funds and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for a decree of recovery of amount of Rs.5,16,000/- alongwith interest. Learned Trial Court held that the cross examination of the plaintiff demonstrated that he was a man of means and further the very fact that the defendant had taken the stand that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.3.00 Lac and out of the said amount, Rs.1.5 Lac was repaid by him, this also proved that he himself was admitting that he owes some amount to the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court also held that the filing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the plaintiff against the defendant were no bar in his filing the suit for recovery and on these bases, learned Trial Court decreed the suit.
6
7
cheque issued by the defendant to repay the same stood dishonoured and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for a decree of recovery and these findings are based on the evidence on record, they do not call for any interference. Further, there are concurrent findings returned by learned Courts below and rightly so that the filing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the plaintiff against the defendant was not a bar in maintaining a civil suit for recovery. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate that these findings were perverse and against law.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
July 08, 2024 (narender)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the filing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bars a civil suit for recovery of the loan amount.
Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the quantum of loan and dishonour of the cheque require interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Roshan Lal
Manoj Kumar
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
