Dismissed

Tehal Singh v. Firm Goyal Trading Co., Badbar

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2009RSA/240/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against judgments decreeing a recovery suit based on a pronote. The court held that the suit was not time-barred as an implied extension of time arose from the trial court's adjournment date for making good court fee deficiency under Section 149 CPC. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; main case and pending civil miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Tehal Singh Vs Firm Goyal Trading… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

RSA No.240 of 2008 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No.240 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2009

Tehal Singh

...Appellant

VERSUS

Firm Goyal Trading Company, Badbar

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶11

Present : Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL)

¶14

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the recovery suit of the respondent which had been filed on the basis of pronote. Learned counsel has proposed the following substantial questions of law:-

¶15

“Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred?

¶16

Whether the finding of the courts that the trial court has deemed to have granted time for payment of deficient court fee is contrary to law?

¶17

Whether the findings of the courts below on issues

¶18

no.1 to 4 are contrary to law?

¶19

RSA No.240 of 2008 (O&M) -2-

¶20

Whether the courts below have misread the evidence?”

¶21

As regards question no.4, learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the finding which has been recorded is either based on no evidence or it is based on such misreading of the evidence so as to render the same perverse.

¶22

As regards question no.3, no argument has been raised as to how the judgments are contrary to law.

¶23

Questions no.1 and 2 are related to each other. Learned counsel has argued that the pronote was allegedly executed on 20.04.2000. The suit was originally filed on 17.04.2003 but court fee was filed on 28.04.2003 and thus the suit could not have been deemed within limitation. I find that this point was duly considered by the learned Lower Appellate Court in paragraph 14 where it had been noticed that alongwith the plaint an application under Section 149 CPC was filed for making good the deficiency of the court fee and when the matter had been taken up by the trial court on 18.04.2003, the same was adjourned for 28.04.2003 to enable the plaintiff-respondent to make good the deficiency of court fee. Thus the learned Lower Appellate Court held that even if no specific order was passed on the application under Section 149 CPC, court order dated 18.04.2003 would have to be read to have been implied an extension of time. In my opinion, no fault can be found with this reasoning.

¶24

Consequently, I decide the questions proposed against the appellant and dismiss the appeal.

¶25

RSA No.240 of 2008 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

No costs.

¶28

As the main case since has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of.

¶29

( AJAY TEWARI ) July 08, 2009 JUDGE ashish

Tehal Singh v. Firm Goyal Trading Co., Badbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tehal Singh v. Firm Goyal Trading Co., Badbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswinder Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Sukhdev Singh and Anr. Vs Bhagwan Singh

Daulat Ram and Ors. Vs Mansha and Ors.

Pyare Lal Vs Premwati and Anr.

M/S Mahalakshmi Spinners Ltd. Vs U.H.B.V.N. and Ors.

Tirkha and Anr. Vs Girraj and Ors.