IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 211 Leela Ram Mansa Ram CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) concurrent judgments and whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.18,000/ been dismissed. longer in touch with the appellant and prays for issuance of fresh notice to the appellant. an exercise in futility as the office report shows that the sole respondent has died. appellant, representatives regular appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon’ble IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2741 of 1999 (O & M) Date of decision :-29.07.2025 Leela Ram Versus Mansa Ram CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate with Mr. Tushar, Advocate for the appellant. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.18,000/ been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is no longer in touch with the appellant and prays for issuance of fresh to the appellant. Heard. Issuing fresh notice to the appellant an exercise in futility as the office report shows that the sole respondent has died. As learned counsel has no contact with the , he submits that he has no info representatives of the respondent, if any. Even otherwise, the second appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon’ble IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2741 of 1999 (O & M) .2025 …..Appellant …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Rajinder Goel, Advocate with The plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal against the decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.18,000/- filed by the appellant has Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is no longer in touch with the appellant and prays for issuance of fresh Issuing fresh notice to the appellant would appear to be an exercise in futility as the office report shows that the sole earned counsel has no contact with the he submits that he has no information regarding legal of the respondent, if any. Even otherwise, the second appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon’ble VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Supreme Court in others 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 61 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 Rs.25,000/ recovery of money or something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of CPC cannot be invoked. of. July 29, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. 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 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 something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of CPC cannot be invoked. In view of the same, the present appeal Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. , 2025 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and 5 #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 and that too, not exceeding . 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 CPC cannot be invoked. In view of the same, the present appeal stands disposed Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.07.31 19.41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document