IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 111 Balbir Singh Oriental Bank of Commerce CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,735/ appellant/defendants was decreed vide judgment and decre 18.1.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Ju and the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to recover an amount of Rs.735/- with proportionate costs from the appellant/defendants. Against the said judgment and decree the appellant herein filed first appeal before the learned lower Appel 11.5.1992 was dismissed. was passed by this Court : RSA-1620-1992 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1620 of 1992 (O & M) Date of decision :-03.05.2025 Balbir Singh Versus Bank of Commerce CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Appellant Balbir Singh in person. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,735/ appellant/defendants was decreed vide judgment and decre 18.1.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Ju and the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to recover an amount of with proportionate costs from the appellant/defendants. Against the said judgment and decree the appellant herein filed first appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, which vide judgment and decree dated 11.5.1992 was dismissed. On the last date of hearing i.e. 21.4.2025, the following order was passed by this Court :- “Order sheet shows that matter has been adjourned at request of learned counsel for the respondent on last three dates i.e. 22.11.2024, 09.12.2024 and 27.2.2025. Today, yet again, request 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1620 of 1992 (O & M) …..Appellant …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Appellant Balbir Singh in person. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the respondent. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.10,735/- from the appellant/defendants was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gidderbaha and the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to recover an amount of with proportionate costs from the appellant/defendants. Against the said judgment and decree the appellant herein filed first appeal before late Court, which vide judgment and decree dated On the last date of hearing i.e. 21.4.2025, the following order “Order sheet shows that matter has been adjourned at request of learned counsel for the respondent on last three dates i.e. 22.11.2024, 09.12.2024 and 27.2.2025. Today, yet again, request VIJAY ASIJA 2025.05.06 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document counsel for the respondent has handed over a Demand Draft bearing No.190997 dated 24.04.2025 am Balbir Singh in the Court today, which is handed over to the appellant, who is present in person. the year 1992 and the only issue of recovery of Rs. costs from the appellant (vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gidderbaha) is involved, which has been challenged vide the present regular second appeal by the appellant; and t bearing No.190997 dated 24.04.2025) in the shape of costs imposed upon the respondents vide order dated 21.4.2025, the appellant submits that he does not want to press the present appeal and the same may b as such. judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khalil Ahmed and others 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 615 #Law Finder Doc ID #793552 wherein it has been held that so as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should be If the subject matter of the suit is any RSA-1620-1992 (O & M) for adjournment has been made by learned counsel for the respondent. The request is allowed, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/ respondent to the appellant Balbir Singh within one week from today. Adjourned to 03.5.2025.” In compliance of the said order dated 21.4.2025, learned counsel for the respondent has handed over a Demand Draft bearing No.190997 dated 24.04.2025 amounting to Rs.2000/ Balbir Singh in the Court today, which is handed over to the appellant, who is present in person. Keeping in view the fact that the present appeal pertains to the year 1992 and the only issue of recovery of Rs. costs from the appellant (vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gidderbaha) is involved, which has been challenged vide the present regular second appeal by the appellant; and the appellant has been paid Rs.2000/ bearing No.190997 dated 24.04.2025) in the shape of costs imposed upon the respondents vide order dated 21.4.2025, the appellant submits that he does not want to press the present appeal and the same may b In any event, second appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and others 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 615 #Law Finder Doc ID wherein it has been held that so as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should be only recovery of money and that too, not exceeding Rs.25,000/ If the subject matter of the suit is anything other than recovery of money or 2 for adjournment has been made by learned counsel for The request is allowed, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the respondent to the appellant Balbir Singh within one Adjourned to 03.5.2025.” In compliance of the said order dated 21.4.2025, learned counsel for the respondent has handed over a Demand Draft bearing ounting to Rs.2000/- in favour of appellant Balbir Singh in the Court today, which is handed over to the appellant, who Keeping in view the fact that the present appeal pertains to the year 1992 and the only issue of recovery of Rs.735/- with proportionate costs from the appellant (vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gidderbaha) is involved, which has been challenged vide the present regular second appeal by the he appellant has been paid Rs.2000/- (Demand Draft bearing No.190997 dated 24.04.2025) in the shape of costs imposed upon the respondents vide order dated 21.4.2025, the appellant submits that he does not want to press the present appeal and the same may be disposed of In any event, second appeal is not maintainable in view of the Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and others 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 615 #Law Finder Doc ID wherein it has been held that so as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit and that too, not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. thing other than recovery of money or VIJAY ASIJA 2025.05.06 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of CPC cannot be invoked. May 03, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No RSA-1620-1992 (O & M) something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of CPC cannot be invoked. Dismissed as not pressed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. , 2025 Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 3 something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of CPC Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.05.06 18.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document