Harnek Singh v. Gurjit Singh

The parties to the suit adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid.

2.4.

On appraisal of evidence vis-à-vis pleadings, the Aggrieved, defendant preferred first appeal, which stands allowed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur reversing the findings of Trial Court holding that in the absence of pronote and receipt the plaintiff had no

right to recover the amount on the basis of filing DDR reporting that documents were lost.

4.

At the outset, counsel for defendant/respondent has argued that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and others, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 615, as per which once the recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25000/- in the original suit, no second appeal would lie and Section 102 C.P.C. would apply in such cases. Further the Supreme Court held that the purpose behind enactment of Section 102 C.P.C. is to reduce the quantum of litigation so that courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meager and not to much consequence. 5.

Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has not been able to cite any contrary judgment.

6.