Gursewak Singh v. M/S Jasvir Singh Trading Company And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA-1297-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision.:20.01.2025 Gursewak Singh .....Appellant Vs.

M/s Jasvir Singh Trading Company and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant of the suit is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for recovery of ₹2,69,379/- (₹2,20,803/- as principal amount + ₹48,576/- as interest) filed by plain1ffs (respondents herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 17.01.2020 and the appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 30.11.2021.

2.

The case of the plain1ffs was based upon the loan transac1ons by contending that defendant had taken loan on different dates from the plain1ffs by virtue of 07 cheques as per details given in para No.3 of the judgment of the Appellate Court for total amount of ₹12,60,000/-. It was contended that an amount of ₹10,39,196.27/- was adjusted, inasmuch as defendant had made payment of the said amount from 1me to 1me, as per the details given in para No.3 of the judgment of the Appellate Court. Balance amount of ₹2,20,803/- was due as principal amount and a;er including the interest component, decree for recovery was sought. 3.

The only defence pleaded by the defendant was that he had made the payment to the plain1ffs, as plain1ffs used to buy milk from the defendant and so, the amount was adjusted.

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.21 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-1297-2022 (O&M) 4.

Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that plain1ffs had successfully proved advancement of loan to the plain1ffs to the tune of ₹12,60,000/-, out of which ₹10,39,196.27/- had already been paid and thus, the claimed amount of ₹2,20,803/- was outstanding. Defendant- appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence so as to prove that the amount as claimed by the plain1ffs had been adjusted against sale of any milk. Before this Court also, the counsel for the appellant- defendant has failed to convince as to how the said payment was made. There is no cogent evidence to substan1ate the conten1on of adjustment of amount for sale of milk.

5.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to take a different view from the view as taken by the Courts below. As such, there is no scope to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper apprecia1on of evidence on record.

6.

Holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merits, same is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE January 20, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.21 09:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document