RSA-2614- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 Hakam Singh Gurdial Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. on record. Separate short are also taken on record. 2. judgment and decree dated District Judge respondent plaintiff vide learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3. before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as defendant’, 4. recovery of -1998 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Hakam Singh Versus Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Mohd. Jameel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent No. on record. Separate short-synopsis filed by learned counsel for the parties are also taken on record. The appellant-defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1998, passed by the learned Judge, Sangrur, vide which the appeal filed by plaintiff respondent was allowed thereby reversing the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangur The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as defendant’, whereas the respondent as ‘the plaintiff’. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ₹12,393/-. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2614-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 .… Appellant .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Mohd. Jameel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent No. (iv) is taken synopsis filed by learned counsel for the parties in second appeal against the , passed by the learned Additional e which the appeal filed by plaintiff/ reversing the dismissal of the suit of the judgment and decree dated 07.03.1998, passed by the Sangur. rties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as ‘the ‘the plaintiff’. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for . It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the (iv) is taken synopsis filed by learned counsel for the parties in second appeal against the Additional dismissal of the suit of the , passed by the rties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status the Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for . It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2614- defendant had household expenses interest and respondent decree dated with costs. 5. Appellate Court filed by the plaintiff Additional District Judge, Sangrur; and the plain recovery of annum from the date of suit till realization of the decreetal amount. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 6. fact and circumstance recovery of in terms of Thakurdwara vs. 793552, wherein it has been held that any decree when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs. Section 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of litigation so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meagre and not to much consequence’. -1998 (O&M) -2- had taken a loan of ₹11,193/- from the plaintiff household expenses. The defendant agreed and writing to this effect was made in the respondent on 20.02.1996. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.1998 dismissed the suit Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate Court. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.1998, the filed by the plaintiff was allowed with costs throughout by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur; and the plain recovery of principal amount of ₹11,193/- annum from the date of suit till realization of the decreetal amount. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. Without adverting to the matter on merits, fact and circumstance that the plaintiff/respondent recovery of ₹12,393/- only, the present Second Appeal is not maintainable in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and others, Law Finder Doc ID # wherein it has been held that ‘no second appeal would lie from any decree when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. The purpose behind enactment of Section 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of litigation so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meagre and not to much consequence’. from the plaintiff for meeting his agreed to pay 2% per month as to this effect was made in the Behi of the plaintiff- The learned trial Court vide judgment and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Ist ide judgment and decree dated 19.08.1998, the appeal was allowed with costs throughout by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur; and the plaintiff was held entitled for - along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the decreetal amount. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. Without adverting to the matter on merits, in the admitted respondent had filed the suit for , the present Second Appeal is not maintainable the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Khalil Ahmed and others, Law Finder Doc ID # ‘no second appeal would lie from any decree when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of . The purpose behind enactment of Section 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of litigation so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meagre and not to much for meeting his to pay 2% per month as The learned trial Court vide judgment and respondent aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Ist appeal was allowed with costs throughout by the learned for along with interest @ 6% per in the admitted had filed the suit for , the present Second Appeal is not maintainable Nagarpalika Khalil Ahmed and others, Law Finder Doc ID # ‘no second appeal would lie from any decree when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of . The purpose behind enactment of Section 102 CPC is to reduce quantum of litigation so that Courts may not have to waste time where the stakes are very meagre and not to much RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-2614- 7. reads as under 8. clear position in law. Accordingly, the present second appeal is hereby dismissed. 9. 14.07.2025 rishu -1998 (O&M) -3- Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant, which reads as under:- “15. 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 somethi money, provisions of Section 102 of the CPC cannot be invoked”. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert this clear position in law. Accordingly, the present second appeal is hereby . Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 14.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant, which 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. . If the subject matter of the suit is anything other than recovery of money or something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of the CPC cannot be Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert this clear position in law. Accordingly, the present second appeal is hereby plication(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant, which 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. . If the subject matter of the suit is anything other ng more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of the CPC cannot be Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to controvert this clear position in law. Accordingly, the present second appeal is hereby RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.17 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.