This judgment dismissed a second appeal by an appellant-defendant challenging a decree for recovery of a loan. The court held the suit was within limitation, noting payments continued till June 2009. It found no substantial question of law.
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The application for additional evidence is rejected.
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.
RSA No.4605 of 2016 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4605 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:28.09.2016
Chaman Singh ... Appellant
Vs.
The United Employee Co.Op. Urban (S.E) T & C Society Ltd. & others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
C.M.No.11943-C of 2016
The deficiency of the Court fees, has been made good.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M.No.11944-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 51 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RSA No.4605 of 2016 (O&M)
The appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, the suit for recovery of amount as claimed, has been decreed.
Mr. N.K.Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submits that the suit ex facie was barred by law of
Savita 2016.10.06 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.4605 of 2016 (O&M) {2}
limitation, for, as per the averments, the loan of `50,000/- was extended upto 20.06.2005, whereas, the suit has been filed on 22.07.2011. Even if the averments made in the plaint are accepted vis-a-vis last acknowledgment, i.e., deposit towards loan liability was on 29.08.2008. The defendant has denied the signatures on the documents and undertaking. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the averments, therefore, did not discharge the onus. Both the Courts below have not appreciated the aforementioned aspects, thus, there is illegality and perversity in the findings rendered by both the Courts below.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and appraised the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.
No doubt, the appellant-defendant had denied the execution of the documents, but the fact remains that plaintiff brought on record the documents, i.e., application for statement of account, original bonds, undertaking agreement. As per the statement of accounts, 1,500/- per month was being deducted from the account of the appellant-defendant towards loan liability. Once the appellant-defendant had deposited a sum of 24,500/- till 29.08.2008, the assertion of denial of the signatures and obtaining loan amount stands demolished but the question which arises is whether the suit is within limitation or not. The aforementioned amount was to be paid in 48 installments and the last installment was paid in the month of June 2009, whereas suit has been filed on 22.07.2011, thus, it is within limitation. All these facts have been examined by the Lower Appellate
Savita 2016.10.06 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.4605 of 2016 (O&M)
{3}
Court being the last Court of facts and law.
In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not intend to differ with the findings under challenge, much less, no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.
Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal stands
dismissed. Consequently, the application for additional evidence is hereby rejected.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| September 28, 2016 savita |
|
| Whether Speaking/Reasoned | Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
Savita 2016.10.06 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for recovery of loan amount filed in 2011 is barred by the law of limitation given the last payment was made in June 2009.
Whether the denial of signatures on documents by the appellant defeats the plaintiff's proof of debt and loan liability.
Whether a substantial question of law arises in the present appeal warranting intervention by the High Court.
Chaman Singh
The United Employee Co.Op. Urban (S.E) T & C Society Ltd.
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
