RSA-3744- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 234 1. M/s Suraj Bhan Om Parkash Bansal Manager, The 2. Manager, The M/s Suraj Bhan Om Parkash Bansal CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. being disposed of being arisen out of the same judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. For brevity, the facts are being RSA-3744- -2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3744-2001 (O&M) M/s Suraj Bhan Om Parkash Bansal Versus The Haryana Ware-Housing Corporation and others RSA-3787-2001 (O&M) The Haryana Ware-Housing Corporation and others Versus M/s Suraj Bhan Om Parkash Bansal CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the appellant (in RSA for the respondent (in RSA-3787 Mr. DS Rawat, Advocate for for the appellants (in RSA-3787 for the respondents (in RSA-3744 NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, two aforementioned cross appeals are being disposed of being arisen out of the same judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. For brevity, the facts are being -2001. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (O&M) … Appellant Housing Corporation and others ... Respondents (O&M) Housing Corporation and others … Appellants ... Respondent Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA None for the appellant (in RSA-3744-2001) and 3787-2001). 3787-2001) and 3744-2001). By this common order, two aforementioned cross appeals are being disposed of being arisen out of the same judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from By this common order, two aforementioned cross appeals are being disposed of being arisen out of the same judgments and decrees of extracted from RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.21 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3744- 2. judgment and decree dated Judge, Sirsa, 3744-2001) was accepted plaintiff vide Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3. before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is being referred to as plaintiff’, whereas the respondent 4. recovery of up to 31.08.1995 ( interest). The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.1999 5. Appellate Court the learned District Judge, Sirsa accepted by setting aside t No. 2 to 4 directed to make payment of the principal amount of a period of 03 months from the date of judgment, failing which plaintiff was held entitled to recover the principal amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the amount. Hence, the present Reg -2001 (O&M) -2- The appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001, passed by the learned Sirsa, vide which the appeal filed by plaintiff ) was accepted thereby reversing the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.1999 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa. 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 whereas the respondents as ‘the defendants’ Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff ha recovery of ₹20,494.57P including principal amount + interest calculated up to 31.08.1995 (₹16,724.60P as principal amount and The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate Court. Vide judgment and decree dated the learned District Judge, Sirsa, the appeal filed by the plaintiff accepted by setting aside the findings of learned trial Court on issues (as regards the principal amount only) and the defendants were directed to make payment of the principal amount of a period of 03 months from the date of judgment, failing which plaintiff was held entitled to recover the principal amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. in second appeal against the , passed by the learned District e which the appeal filed by plaintiff/appellant (in RSA- reversing the dismissal of the suit of the 15.9.1999, passed by the learned 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 ‘the the defendants’. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for 20,494.57P including principal amount + interest calculated 16,724.60P as principal amount and ₹3769.97 P as The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated plaintiff. aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Ist ide judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001 passed by appeal filed by the plaintiff was he findings of learned trial Court on issues (as regards the principal amount only) and the defendants were directed to make payment of the principal amount of ₹16,724.60P within a period of 03 months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to recover the principal amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the ular Second Appeal. in second appeal against the District dismissal of the suit of the , passed by the learned The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status the d filed a suit for 20,494.57P including principal amount + interest calculated 3769.97 P as The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Ist passed by was he findings of learned trial Court on issues (as regards the principal amount only) and the defendants were 16,724.60P within the plaintiff was held entitled to recover the principal amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.21 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3744- 6. of the year 2001 and on the last date of hearing there is no representation on behalf of the appellant appellant-plaintiff 7. circumstance ₹20,494.57P only ( interest), both the aforementioned cross appeals are not terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and others, Law Finder Doc ID # 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 ar consequence’. 8. reads as under 9. 3744-001) -2001 (O&M) -3- Perusal of the order-sheets reveals that both the appeals are of the year 2001 and on the last date of hearing there is no representation on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff (in RSA plaintiff (in RSA-3744-2001) has In view of the above and circumstances that the plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of 20,494.57P only (₹16,724.60P as principal amount + both the aforementioned cross appeals are not 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 f 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 ar consequence’. 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 something more than recovery of money, provisions of Section 102 of the CPC cannot be invoked”. Learned counsel for the defendant is unable to controvert this clear position in law. Accordingly, sheets reveals that both the appeals are of the year 2001 and on the last date of hearing there is no representation plaintiff (in RSA-3744-2001). Today again, the s gone un-represented. In view of the above and in the admitted facts and had filed the suit for recovery of 16,724.60P as principal amount + ₹3769.97 P as both the aforementioned cross appeals are not maintainable in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. 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 Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant, which So as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should 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 the defendant-respondents (in RSA- is unable to controvert this clear position in law. Accordingly, sheets reveals that both the appeals are of the year 2001 and on the last date of hearing there is no representation , the and had filed the suit for recovery of 3769.97 P as maintainable in Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed and others, Law Finder Doc ID # rom 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 e very meagre and not to much Para 15 of the aforesaid judgment is also relevant, which So as to avail advantage of the provisions of Section 102 of the CPC, the subject matter of the original suit should 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 is unable to controvert this clear position in law. Accordingly, RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.21 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-3744- both the present second appeal are hereby 10. 11. connected case. 19.08.2025 rishu -2001 (O&M) -4- present second appeals bearing RSA Nos. 3744 and 3787 hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stan A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable bearing RSA Nos. 3744 and 3787-2001 Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.21 20:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.