2025:HHC:44240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.255/2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 Mast Ram Pathak .....Appellant. Versus Jagdish Chandel …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The Appellant, before this Court by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Solan, Camp at Arki H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2023 decided on 23.08.2024, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge Arki, District, Solan H.P. in Civil Suit No. 197/1 of 2016, titled as Jagdish Chandel vs. Mast Ram Pathak has been affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2. The parties to the appeal, hereinafter for the sake of convenience, shall be referred to in the same manner as described in the judgment of the ld. Trial Court. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this second appeal, as culled from the record, is that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of ₹ 6,22,646/- along with future compounding interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The plaintiff's foundational case, as pleaded, was that the defendant-appellant, being his neighbour and having healthy relations, used to borrow money for the smooth running of his business. 4. It was averred that the defendant ultimately failed to return the borrowed amounts and, consequently, on 22.06.2014, executed a pronote/agreement in the presence of witnesses. By this document, the defendant undertook to repay a consolidated borrowed amount of ₹ 5 Lakh in installments of ₹ 30,000/- each after every four months. A further condition was stipulated that upon default in payment of any installment, the defendant would transfer his house, landed property, and jewellery to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that despite the execution of this document and the grant of sufficient time, the defendant did not repay any amount, thereby incurring an additional liability to pay compounding interest @ 10% per annum on the principal sum. 5. The suit was vigorously contested by the defendant by way of a written statement. While admitting acquaintance with the plaintiff, 3 the defendant denied the entirety of the plaintiff's substantive case. He specifically denied having borrowed any loan of ₹ 5 Lakh, executing the document dated 22.06.2014, or agreeing to the repayment schedule. Furthermore, the defendant raised a host of preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the suit on grounds of want of cause of action, estoppel, concealment of material facts, lack of locus standi on the part of the plaintiff, and improper valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee. The plaintiff filed a replication, thereby joining issue and reasserting the claims made in the plaint. 6. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed eight issues on 04.07.2017. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of ₹ 6,22,646/- alongwith future bank interest i.e compounding interest @ 10% per annum thereon from the date i.e. 07.10.2016 till final realization of the total amount along with cost, as alleged? ….OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? ...OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? ...OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit due to his own acts, conducts, deeds and acquiescences? ...OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts? ...OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? ...OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee? ...OPD 4 8. Relief 7. The document itself was exhibited and proved as Ext. ‘X’, with a copy marked as “Mark-A”. The defendant, despite having contested the suit, chose not to lead any evidence whatsoever in support of the defences taken in the written statement. 8. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing arguments, the learned trial court pronounced its judgment and decree on 29.09.2022. The court answered issue No.1 in partly affirmative, holding the plaintiff entitled to recover the principal amount but not the interest at the claimed rate. All preliminary issues from No.2 to No.7 were answered in the negative, against the defendant. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed for recovery of ₹ 5 Lakh along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till its decision, and further interest @ 7% per annum from the date of decision till realization, along with costs. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant preferred a first appeal. In the first appeal, the appellant assailed the trial court's decision on several grounds. It was contended that the trial court failed to appreciate a fundamental flaw in the plaintiff's case, being the complete absence of pleading and proof regarding the specific date, month, or year when the alleged loan of ₹ 5 Lakh was advanced, which rendered the entire claim barred by limitation. A significant legal challenge was mounted against the admissibility of the document, Ext. ‘X’. 5 10. The appellant argued that the plaintiff had sought to prove his case solely on the basis of a photocopy of this document without seeking the court's permission to produce the original, and as such, the photocopy was inadmissible in evidence. On merits, it was contended that the document was erroneously construed as an agreement by the trial court despite it not being signed by the plaintiff, the second party to it. Further objections were raised regarding the document's validity, noting that it was not attested by a Notary or any attesting authority, its terms regarding transfer of property upon default were against public policy, and the plaintiff failed to examine the stamp vendor who issued the stamp paper. The appellant also sought to discredit the plaintiff's witnesses, PW2 and PW3, by asserting that they were relatives of the plaintiff and that their testimonies did not fully support the plaintiff's case regarding execution, as they were allegedly unaware of the specific terms and conditions contained in the document. 11. The first appellate court, however, upon a reconsideration of the evidence and the arguments advanced, found no merit in these contentions. It upheld the findings of the trial court regarding the execution of the document, the liability of the appellant, and the rejection of the preliminary objections. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. It is against these concurrent findings of fact 6 and law by both the courts below that the defendant has now instituted the present second appeal. 12. Heard Counsel for the Appellant and perused the impugned judgements. 13. The plaintiff has proved the due execution of the document dated 22.06.2014, originally marked as Mark-A and later exhibited as Ext. ‘X’. The plaintiff (PW1) consistently deposed that the defendant executed the said document in his presence, and this fact stands corroborated by PW2 and PW3, who categorically stated that the defendant wrote and signed the document in their presence. The defendant neither effectively challenged this material aspect in cross- examination nor led any evidence in rebuttal, and he also failed to step into the witness box. An adverse inference is, therefore, drawn against the defendant, and the execution of Ext. ‘X’ by him stands duly established. 14. The contention that Ext. ‘X’ could not be treated as an agreement on the ground that it was not signed by the plaintiff is without merit. An agreement does not mandatorily require signatures of both parties in all cases, the same has been held by the Supreme Court in Alka Bose Vs. Parmatma Devi and Ors.,(2009)2SCC582, relevant portion has been reproduced hereinunder: “7. We find that neither of the two decisions have addressed the real issue and cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. The observation in Md. Mohar Ali (supra) stating that an agreement of sale is an unilateral contract is not correct. An unilateral contract refers to a gratuitous promise where only 7 party makes a promise without a return promise. Unilateral contract is explained thus by John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo in The Law of Contracts (4 th Edition Para 2-10(a) at pages 64-65): If A says to B, 'If you walk across the Brooklyn Bridge I will pay you Rs.100,' A has made a promise but has not asked. B for a return promise. A has asked B to perform, not a commitment to perform. A has thus made an offer looking to a unilateral contract. B cannot accept this offer by promising to walk the bridge. B must accept, if at all, by performing the act. Because no return promise is requested, at no point is B bound to perform. If B does perform, a contract involving two parties is created, but the contract is classified as unilateral because only one party is ever under an obligation.” 15. In view of aforesaid, The learned trial court committed no error in treating the document as an agreement rather than merely an undertaking or pronote. 16. The plea that the terms of Ext. ‘X’ are opposed to public policy is not substantiated by the defendant, as no specific term has been shown to be unlawful or against public policy. Hence, this objection has been rightly rejected. 17. The fact that the plaintiff initially led evidence on the basis of a photocopy of the document, which was admitted as Mark-A, does not vitiate the case. The photocopy was admitted without objection, and the original document Ext. ‘X’ was subsequently produced and taken on record, again without objection. The photocopy is found to be a true and faithful reproduction of the original, with no discrepancy or tampering. 18. From Ext. ‘X’, it stands proved that the defendant acknowledged receipt of a sum of ₹5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same in installments. The acknowledgment dated 8 22.06.2014 constitutes a valid acknowledgment of liability, and limitation for recovery commences from that date. No objection regarding limitation was raised by the defendant before the trial court. 19. It is further established that the defendant failed to repay any part of the said amount despite repeated opportunities. Consequently, the defendant is liable to pay ₹5,00,000/- to the plaintiff in terms of Ext. ‘X’. 20. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court are held to be legally and factually sound and call for no interference. The findings are affirmed, and the appeal stands decided against the appellant. 21. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 12th December, 2025 (Tarun)