Dev Raj Kapta Vs Puran Chand and Another

The instant petition arises out of order as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohru, Shimla, H.P. dated 15.01.2026, whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. dated 13.09.2024 was affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the present respondent/plaintiff was

¶16

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

-2-

¶18

partly decreed and he was held entitled for a sum of Rs.3,55,780/along with future interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the defendants.

¶19

The facts as emerge in the present case are that Puran Chand, the present respondent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,55,780/- against Smt. Puran Rekha, Dev Raj Kapta and M/s Maa Hateshwari Fruit Co. through its partners (defendants No.1 and 2) in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. As per the plaintiff, he is an orchardist/horticulturist by profession and the owner of ‘ Puran Bag’ orchard, situated in Village Daroti, PO Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla. The defendants are working as fruits and vegetable commission agents and order suppliers in the name and style of M/s "MAA HATESHWARI FRUIT CO. shop No.37-A, Fruit Terminal Market, Sector-6, Parwanoo, Solan, HP.

¶20

It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have deputed their agents in Village Daroti for accepting the apple consignments from different orchardists. The defendants approached the plaintiff personally as well as through their agents for sale of his apple crop and on their persuasion, the plaintiff agreed to sell his crop through them. The oral agreement was entered into at the orchard of the plaintiff after due inspection of apple crop by the agents of the defendants and thereafter, in September, 2015, the plaintiff sent

¶21

-3-

¶22

consignment of 317 apple boxes to the defendants for sale in the market and the same was duly received by the defendants on 29.09.2015. The defendants sold this consignment for a sum of Rs.3,55,780/- after the deduction of expenses vide bill No.204 issued by the defendants. The case was set up by the plaintiff that the defendants have not paid the said amount to him. After making various requests, the defendants issued two cheques bearing No.484332 dated 25.11.2016 amounting to 50,000/- favouring the plaintiff and drawn on PNB, Parwanoo (Solan) and cheque No.484342 dated 07.12.2016 amounting to 50,000/- favouring the plaintiff and drawn on PNB, Parwanoo (Solan). When the plaintiff, presented the aforesaid cheques to the banker of the defendants, the same could not be encashed on account of 'exceeds arrangement’ in the account of the defendants and were dishonoured. Therefore, the defendants have cheated the plaintiff by issuing these cheques. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the defendants.

¶23

The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements.

¶24

Learned trial Court framed the issues and directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. Vide its judgment and decree dated 13.09.2024, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit as filed by present respondent Puran Chand

¶25

-4-

¶26

and he was held entitled for recovery of Rs.3,55,780/- along with future interest @ 7% per annum from the defendants jointly and severally from the date of filing of suit till realization of the decretal amount.

¶27

Defendants No.1 and 2 instituted appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the impugned judgment and decree as passed by learned trial Court. Since the appeal was time barred, therefore, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned first appellate Court vide its order dated 15.01.2026, dismissed the application as filed by the defendants for condonation of delay.

¶28

Feeling dissatisfied, defendant No.2 has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

It is contended by Mr. T.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the application filed by the defendants for condonation of delay has been wrongly rejected.

¶30

On the other hand, Mr. Devender K. Sharma and Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, respectively, raised a preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of present petition. According to them, against the dismissal of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the learned first appellate Court, the appropriate remedy available to the present petitioner is to invoke the provision of

¶31

-5-

¶32

Section 100 of CPC, as per mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder Sarma vs. Pannalal Jaiswal and others, AIR 2005 SC 226 . The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as follows:

¶33

“10. The question was considered in extenso by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Thambi vs. Mathew (1987 (2) KLT 848). Therein, after referring to the relevant decisions on the question it was held that an appeal presented out of time was nevertheless an appeal in the eye of law for all purposes and an order dismissing the appeal was a decree that could be the subject of a second appeal. It was also held that Rule 3A of Order XLI introduced by Amendment Act 104 of 1976 to the Code, did not in any way affect that principle. An appeal registered under Rule 9 of Order XLI of the Code had to be disposed of according to law and a dismissal of an appeal for the reason of delay in its presentation, after the dismissal of an application for condoning the delay, is in substance and effect a confirmation of the decree appealed against. Thus, the position that emerges on a survey of the authorities is that an appeal filed along with an application for condoning the delay in filing that appeal when dismissed on the refusal to condone the delay is nevertheless a decision in the appeal.

¶34

This Court is in agreement with the submission as made by learned counsel for the respondents that against the dismissal of the application as filed by the present petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the present petition, as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable.

¶35

Consequently, in view of objection as raised by learned counsel for the respondents and in view of mandate as laid down by

¶36

-6-

¶37

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder Sarma case (supra) , the present petition is held to be not maintainable

¶38

However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail appropriate remedy under the relevant provisions of law, including filing of appeal under section 100 of CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act be also granted to the petitioner.

¶39

13 Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty as aforesaid after granting the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, strictly in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶41

10^th July, 2026 (vt)

Dev Raj Kapta v. Puran Chand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Raj Kapta v. Puran Chand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Garg (deceased) through LRs and Another Vs Rakesh Kapila

Govind Alias Govind Ram Vs UOI and Others

Thakur Chand Vs Sneh Lata

Ashwani Sood Vs Municipal Corporation Shimla

Dev Raj Kapta Vs Praveen and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Ram Lal and Others