RSA-3744- -2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA v. Manager, Th The Haryana Ware-Housing Corpo Corporation and others 2. RSA-3787-2001
Case Details
RSA-3744- -2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 234 1. RSA-3744-2001 (O&M) &M) M/s Suraj Bh uraj Bhan Om Parkash Bansal … Appellant Versus Manager, Th The Haryana Ware-Housing Corpo Corporation and others 2. RSA-3787-2001 (O&M) &M) ... Respondents Manager, Th The Haryana Ware-Housing Corpo Corporation and others Versus M/s Suraj Bh uraj Bhan Om Parkash Bansal … Appellants ... Respondent Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 CORAM: H
Legal Reasoning
M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - None for the appellant (in RSA RSA-3744-2001) and for the respondent (in RSA-3787 3787-2001). Mr. DS Rawat, Advocate for for the appellants (in RSA-3787 for the respondents (in RSA-374 3787-2001) and 3744-2001). NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By this common order, two afor are o aforementioned cross appeals are being dispos
Decision
disposed of being arisen out of the sa s of the same judgments and decrees of both the Co he Courts below. For brevity, the fa rom the facts are being extracted from RSA-3744- -2001. RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.21 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3744- -2001 (O&M) -2- 2. The appellant-plaintiff is in the in second appeal against the judgment an ent and decree dated 15.06.2001, pa trict , passed by the learned District Judge, Sirsa Sirsa, vide which the appeal filed by iled by plaintiff/appellant (in RSA- 3744-2001) ) was accepted thereby reversing f the rsing the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide ff vide judgment and decree dated 15. rned 15.9.1999, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( udge (Junior Division), Sirsa. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be atus ter be referred to as per their status before the le the learned trial Court i.e. the appella the appellant is being referred to as ‘the plaintiff’, wh whereas the respondents as ‘the de the defendants’. 4. Brief facts of the case are that th t for that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ry of ₹20,494.57P including principal ated incipal amount + interest calculated up to 31.08. 31.08.1995 (₹16,724.60P as principa P as incipal amount and ₹3769.97 P as interest). Th The learned trial Court vide ated vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.1999 1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff laintiff. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff e Ist aintiff filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate C late Court. Vide judgment and decree d by decree dated 15.06.2001 passed by the learned arned District Judge, Sirsa, the appe was appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted by ed by setting aside the findings of gs of learned trial Court on issues sues No. 2 to 4 (as regards the principal amount o ere ount only) and the defendants were directed to m d to make payment of the principal a ithin cipal amount of ₹16,724.60P within a period of od of 03 months from the date of the te of judgment, failing which the plaintiff was ff was held entitled to recover the with r the principal amount along with interest @ 9 t @ 9% per annum from the date the date of suit till realization of the amount. Hen Hence, the present Regular Second econd Appeal. RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.21 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3744- -2001 (O&M) -3- 6. Perusal of the order-sheets reve are ts reveals that both the appeals are of the year 2 year 2001 and on the last date of hear tion of hearing there is no representation on behalf of alf of the appellant-plaintiff (in RSA , the RSA-3744-2001). Today again, the appellant-pla plaintiff (in RSA-3744-2001) has s gone un-represented. 7. In view of the above and and and in the admitted facts and circumstance stances that the plaintiff had file of d filed the suit for recovery of ₹20,494.57P 4.57P only (₹16,724.60P as princip as rincipal amount + ₹3769.97 P as interest), bot both the aforementioned cross ap e in oss appeals are not maintainable in terms of the the judgment of the Hon’ble Sup ka le Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Thakurdwar dwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and oth # others, Law Finder Doc ID # 793552, whe wherein it has been held that ‘no s m ‘no second appeal would lie from any decree w ree when the subject matter of the o of the original suit is for recovery of money not not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. The p of e purpose behind enactment of Section 102 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of ay of litigation so that Courts may not have to w e to waste time where the stakes ar ch are very meagre and not to much consequence ence’. 8. Para 15 of the aforesaid judgm hich judgment is also relevant, which reads as und as under:- “15. So as to avail advantage 102 of the CPC, the subject ma be only recovery of money and 25,000/-. If the subject matter than recovery of money or som money, provisions of Section invoked”. on tage of the provisions of Section t matter of the original suit should ld and that too, not exceeding Rs. s. er tter of the suit is anything other something more than recovery of of be tion 102 of the CPC cannot be 9. Learned counsel for the defe e defendant-respondents (in RSA- 3744-001) is unable to controvert this clear gly, clear position in law. Accordingly, RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.21 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3744- -2001 (O&M) -4- both the pre present second appeals bearing RS ing RSA Nos. 3744 and 3787-2001 are hereby reby dismissed. 10. 11. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be ther er be placed on the file of other connected ca cted case. 2025 19.08.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.21 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.