IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 110 RSA-1197-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:11.05.2026 Charan Singh @ Kala Punia and Another …..Appellants Vs. Naresh Jain .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate and Mr. Anil Chahal, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants-appellants assailing the judgments & decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plain'ff for recovery of ₹5,00,000/- along with interest has been decreed concurrently. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have misread the evidence on record and have erroneously decreed the suit despite the fact that the cheque in ques'on was a self cheque and no legally enforceable liability stood established against the appellants. It has further been contended that the plain'ff was not possessing any licence for money lending and, therefore, the alleged transac'on itself was unenforceable. It is also argued that no documentary evidence was produced to establish advancement of loan to appellant No.1 and the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from perversity. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.12 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1197-2023 (O&M) through the judgments and records with his assistance. 4. The plain'ff ins'tuted a suit seeking recovery of ₹5,00,000/- along with interest by pleading that appellant No.1 requested for a friendly loan for execu'on of sale deed of a plot and appellant No.2 collected the amount on 10.12.2013 through self cheque No.180912 issued by the plain'ff. The said transac'on was duly reflected in the bahi entry signed by appellant No.2. 5. The suit was contested. Trial court decreed the suit on 21.05.2018 a9er apprecia'on of oral as well as documentary evidence and the said findings have been affirmed in appeal by the learned First Appellate Court on 06.12.2022. 6. Both the Courts below have concurrently returned findings of fact that the amount of ₹5,00,000/- was received by appellant No.2 from the plain'ff and the same was never repaid. The said findings are based upon proper apprecia'on of evidence led by the par'es. The plain'ff examined the bank official, himself and the accountant namely Nasib Saini, who specifically proved the issuance of cheque, its encashment and the corresponding bahi entry bearing signatures of appellant No.2. Most significantly, during cross-examina'on, appellant No.2 admi>ed receipt and encashment of the self cheque. Once such admission came on record, the burden shi9ed upon the defendants to establish their plea that the amount represented repayment allegedly due from plain'ff’s son. However, except making bald asser'ons, no cogent evidence whatsoever was led by the defendants to substan'ate such defence. 7. The conten'on regarding absence of money lending licence has rightly been rejected by both the Courts below. The transac'on pleaded by the plain'ff was a singular friendly loan transac'on and not a part of any regular business of money lending. No evidence was produced by the defendants to establish that the plain'ff was habitually engaged in Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.12 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1197-2023 (O&M) advancing loans so as to a>ract the rigours of the money lending laws. Mere advancement of a friendly loan cannot ipso facto render the claim unenforceable. 8. Equally devoid of merit is the argument regarding insufficiency of court fee. The suit was essen'ally for recovery of principal amount and the issue regarding future interest was within the discre'on of the Court under Sec'on 34 CPC. No prejudice whatsoever has been shown to have been caused to the defendants on that account. 9. It is well se>led that jurisdic'on under Sec'on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined only to substan'al ques'ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence or suffering from patent illegality. Re-apprecia'on of evidence is impermissible in second appeal. 10. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any illegality, perversity or misreading of evidence in the judgments passed by the Courts below. The findings recorded are pure findings of fact based upon admissible evidence and do not give rise to any substan'al ques'on of law requiring interference by this Court. 11. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are affirmed. 12. Pending miscellaneous applica'ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 11, 2026 Nee'ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.12 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document