RSA-336-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 133 Meena Bansal Smt.Kailash Taneja CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Munish Gupta for the appellant Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, Advocate for respondents. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The defendant is the appellant judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery filed by the respondents 16.04.2024 passed by the learned 1 preferred by her against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are, that the son of the respondent No.1-plaintiff, namely Pardeep Taneja, shared close Abhay Kumar Bansal house for several years, during which it came to the knowledge of the respondent No.1-plaintiff that the defendant was not in a sound financial posit second week of December 2009, the defendant, along with Pardeep Taneja, approached respondent No.1 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-336 Date of Decision:20.08.2025 Versus Smt.Kailash Taneja since deceased (through her Lrs) and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, Advocate for respondents. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The defendant is the appellant judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery filed by the respondents 16.04.2024 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court vide w preferred by her against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed. Succinctly, the facts of the case are, that the son of the respondent plaintiff, namely Pardeep Taneja, shared close Abhay Kumar Bansal, as both families had resided together in the same rented house for several years, during which it came to the knowledge of the respondent plaintiff that the defendant was not in a sound financial posit second week of December 2009, the defendant, along with Pardeep Taneja, approached respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking a friendly loan of Rs.10,00,000/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 336-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.08.2025 ... Appellant (through her Lrs) and others ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, Advocate AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and the judgment dated Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by her against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Succinctly, the facts of the case are, that the son of the respondent plaintiff, namely Pardeep Taneja, shared close relations with the defendant , as both families had resided together in the same rented house for several years, during which it came to the knowledge of the respondent plaintiff that the defendant was not in a sound financial position. In the second week of December 2009, the defendant, along with Pardeep Taneja, plaintiff seeking a friendly loan of Rs.10,00,000/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing plaintiffs and the judgment dated hich the appeal preferred by her against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned Succinctly, the facts of the case are, that the son of the respondent relations with the defendant- , as both families had resided together in the same rented house for several years, during which it came to the knowledge of the respondent ion. In the second week of December 2009, the defendant, along with Pardeep Taneja, - for PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-336-2025 (O&M) his business, whereupon he issued cheque N 5,75,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, GT Road, Jalandhar, in favor of the defendant, which was credited to the account of his firm, M/s Dhanraj Indu and thereafter, cheque N the same bank in favour of the defe his firm, thereby lending a total sum of Rs. 6,75,000/ any stipulation of interest, repayable as and when demanded. Subsequently, the defendant repaid Rs. 3,50,000/ No.000311 dated 23.06.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/ 06.07.2012 for Rs. 1,50,000/ defendant-Abhay Kumar Bansal having inherited the estate of Abhay Kumar Bansal balance amount. However, despite repeated requests and service of legal notice dated 19.03.2013, no payment was made. Hence, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs. realization. 3. Upon issuance counsel and filed written statement wherein he has raised preliminary objections with regard to main standi of plaintiff has never inherited the assets of M/s Dhanraj Industries and defendants no. 3 and 4 are married daughte respondents-plaintiffs cannot club two loan transactions in this case. Further it is stated that Pardeep Taneja was not even authorized to file the present suit. Furthermore, both the parties 2025 (O&M) -2- ss, whereupon he issued cheque No.310987 dated 14.12.2009 for Rs. drawn on Bank of Baroda, GT Road, Jalandhar, in favor of the defendant, which was credited to the account of his firm, M/s Dhanraj Indu and thereafter, cheque No.310988 dated 20.03.2010 for Rs. 1,00,000/ the same bank in favour of the defendant, which was also credited in the account of his firm, thereby lending a total sum of Rs. 6,75,000/ any stipulation of interest, repayable as and when demanded. Subsequently, the defendant repaid Rs. 3,50,000/- to the plaintiff thr 000311 dated 23.06.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/ 06.07.2012 for Rs. 1,50,000/-, leaving the balance outstanding. Abhay Kumar Bansal has expired, the present inherited the estate of Abhay Kumar Bansal balance amount. However, despite repeated requests and service of legal notice dated 19.03.2013, no payment was made. Hence, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest from the date of filing till the date of Upon issuance of summons, appellant counsel and filed written statement wherein he has raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of suit, concealment of facts, cause of action, plaintiff to file the present suit. It was submitted that appellan never inherited the assets of M/s Dhanraj Industries and defendants no. 3 and 4 are married daughters and living separately. Moreover, this suit is time barred and plaintiffs cannot club two loan transactions in this case. Further it is stated that Pardeep Taneja was not even authorized to file the present suit. Furthermore, both the parties were living together from more than 20 years but the o.310987 dated 14.12.2009 for Rs. drawn on Bank of Baroda, GT Road, Jalandhar, in favor of the defendant, which was credited to the account of his firm, M/s Dhanraj Industries, o.310988 dated 20.03.2010 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on ndant, which was also credited in the account of his firm, thereby lending a total sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- as a friendly loan without any stipulation of interest, repayable as and when demanded. Subsequently, the iff through two cheques, i.e., cheque 000311 dated 23.06.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- and cheque No.000312 dated , leaving the balance outstanding. Since t expired, the present appellant-defendan inherited the estate of Abhay Kumar Bansal, is jointly liable to repay the balance amount. However, despite repeated requests and service of legal notice dated 19.03.2013, no payment was made. Hence, the present suit was filed for along with interest from the date of filing till the date of of summons, appellant-defendant appeared through counsel and filed written statement wherein he has raised preliminary objections tainability of suit, concealment of facts, cause of action, locus It was submitted that appellan-defendant never inherited the assets of M/s Dhanraj Industries and defendants no. 3 and 4 rs and living separately. Moreover, this suit is time barred and plaintiffs cannot club two loan transactions in this case. Further it is stated that Pardeep Taneja was not even authorized to file the present suit. were living together from more than 20 years but the o.310987 dated 14.12.2009 for Rs. drawn on Bank of Baroda, GT Road, Jalandhar, in favor of the stries, drawn on ndant, which was also credited in the account of as a friendly loan without any stipulation of interest, repayable as and when demanded. Subsequently, the ough two cheques, i.e., cheque 000312 dated Since the defendant, jointly liable to repay the balance amount. However, despite repeated requests and service of legal notice dated 19.03.2013, no payment was made. Hence, the present suit was filed for along with interest from the date of filing till the date of appeared through her counsel and filed written statement wherein he has raised preliminary objections locus defendant never inherited the assets of M/s Dhanraj Industries and defendants no. 3 and 4 rs and living separately. Moreover, this suit is time barred and plaintiffs cannot club two loan transactions in this case. Further it is stated that Pardeep Taneja was not even authorized to file the present suit. were living together from more than 20 years but the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-336-2025 (O&M) story qua the lending of money is concocted one. Lastly, the remaining averments of the plaint a denied by all defendants. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as six issues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.3,25,000/ and the appeal preferred by the learned 1st Appellate Court learned trial Court was modified with the observation that the plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @ and future interest @6% till realization on the amount of Rs.3,25,000/ regular second appeal. 5. Learned appellant is a husband. The respondents suit even though the appellant’s husband, as Proprietor of M/s Dhanraj Industries, used to make advance cash payments against the book entries maintained by the respondents-plaintiff and her family members. It is submitte under Section 214 of Indian Succession Act, as the succession certificate has not been produced. Further, the plaint does not show that any demand for return of the alleged amount was ever made before issuance of notice dated 19.0 Furthermore, the cheque relied upon was only a paper transaction because the corresponding cash had already been paid. It is pertinent to mention that the respondents-plaintiff capacity or the advancement of any friendly loan. Even otherwise, the appellant 2025 (O&M) -3- story qua the lending of money is concocted one. Lastly, the remaining averments of the plaint a denied by all defendants. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as ssues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents for recovery of Rs.3,25,000/- vide judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 l preferred by the appellant-defendant No.1 Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.04.2024 learned trial Court was modified with the observation that the plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decision and future interest @6% till realization on the amount of Rs.3,25,000/ regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant housewife and was not aware of the business affairs of her late husband. The respondents-plaintiffs, with mala fide suit even though the appellant’s husband, as Proprietor of M/s Dhanraj Industries, used to make advance cash payments against the book entries maintained by the plaintiff and her family members. It is submitte ction 214 of Indian Succession Act, as the succession certificate has not been produced. Further, the plaint does not show that any demand for return of the alleged amount was ever made before issuance of notice dated 19.0 Furthermore, the cheque relied upon was only a paper transaction because the corresponding cash had already been paid. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs also failed to produce Income Tax Returns to prove he advancement of any friendly loan. Even otherwise, the appellant story qua the lending of money is concocted one. Lastly, the remaining averments On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as ssues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents vide judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 defendant No.1 was also dismissed by the vide judgment dated 16.04.2024 and decree of the learned trial Court was modified with the observation that the plaintiff shall also be 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decision and future interest @6% till realization on the amount of Rs.3,25,000/-. Hence, the counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 contends that the housewife and was not aware of the business affairs of her late mala fide intention, filed a false recovery suit even though the appellant’s husband, as Proprietor of M/s Dhanraj Industries, used to make advance cash payments against the book entries maintained by the plaintiff and her family members. It is submitted that the suit is barred ction 214 of Indian Succession Act, as the succession certificate has not been produced. Further, the plaint does not show that any demand for return of the alleged amount was ever made before issuance of notice dated 19.03.2013. Furthermore, the cheque relied upon was only a paper transaction because the corresponding cash had already been paid. It is pertinent to mention that the also failed to produce Income Tax Returns to prove their he advancement of any friendly loan. Even otherwise, the appellant story qua the lending of money is concocted one. Lastly, the remaining averments On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court had framed as many as ssues including relief. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents- vide judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 was also dismissed by the and decree of the learned trial Court was modified with the observation that the plaintiff shall also be 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till decision . Hence, the contends that the housewife and was not aware of the business affairs of her late intention, filed a false recovery suit even though the appellant’s husband, as Proprietor of M/s Dhanraj Industries, used to make advance cash payments against the book entries maintained by the d that the suit is barred ction 214 of Indian Succession Act, as the succession certificate has not been produced. Further, the plaint does not show that any demand for return of the 3.2013. Furthermore, the cheque relied upon was only a paper transaction because the corresponding cash had already been paid. It is pertinent to mention that the their he advancement of any friendly loan. Even otherwise, the appellant- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-336-2025 (O&M) defendant No.1 since she never inherited 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of fact and law and, therefore, they are required to be upheld by dismissing the instant regular second appeal. 7. Having hear record with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. It is rightly concluded by the learned lower Courts that the husband o friendly loan from the respondents later on. Since the there are admissions made on their part in the properties and business inherited by them, therefore rightly decreed the suit that the suit was barred under section 214 of the Indian Success merit, as the necessity to obtain mandatory, as the proceedings for grant of such certificate are summary in nature and insistence thereon would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The Court, being a court of plenary jurisdiction, is fully competent to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Thus, the suit can Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circums find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant defendant No.1 2025 (O&M) -4- No.1 cannot be held liable for any alleged loan of her deceased husband since she never inherited the assets of M/s Dhanraj Industries. Per contra, learned counsel appearing judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of fact and law and, therefore, they are required to be upheld by dismissing the instant regular second appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. It is rightly concluded by the learned lower Courts that the husband of the appellant friendly loan from the respondents-plaintiff and the same has not been returned later on. Since the defendants are Class I heirs of the late Abhay Kumar Bansal and there are admissions made on their part in the properties and business inherited by them, therefore rightly decreed the suit. Further, the contention of the appellant that the suit was barred under section 214 of the Indian Success , as the necessity to obtain a succession certificate is directory and not mandatory, as the proceedings for grant of such certificate are summary in nature and insistence thereon would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The Court, being a court of plenary jurisdiction, is fully competent to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Thus, the suit can ection 214 of the Indian Succession Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and circums find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant No.1, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. cannot be held liable for any alleged loan of her deceased husband the assets of M/s Dhanraj Industries. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of fact and law and, therefore, they are required to be upheld by dismissing the instant regular second appeal. d the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. It is rightly concluded by the f the appellant-defendant No.1 had taken plaintiff and the same has not been returned Class I heirs of the late Abhay Kumar Bansal and there are admissions made on their part in the learned trial Court regarding properties and business inherited by them, therefore, both the learned Courts below the contention of the appellant-defendant No.1 that the suit was barred under section 214 of the Indian Succession Act is without a succession certificate is directory and not mandatory, as the proceedings for grant of such certificate are summary in nature and insistence thereon would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The Civil Court, being a court of plenary jurisdiction, is fully competent to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Thus, the suit cannot be said to be barred under In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant , much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. cannot be held liable for any alleged loan of her deceased husband for the respondents submits that judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of fact and law and, therefore, they are required to be upheld d the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. It is rightly concluded by the had taken plaintiff and the same has not been returned Class I heirs of the late Abhay Kumar Bansal and rial Court regarding , both the learned Courts below No.1 ion Act is without a succession certificate is directory and not mandatory, as the proceedings for grant of such certificate are summary in nature Civil Court, being a court of plenary jurisdiction, is fully competent to adjudicate the not be said to be barred under tances, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant- , much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-336-2025 (O&M) Consequently, the concurrent finding upheld and the instant regular second appeal is dismissed. 9. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. August 20, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -5- Consequently, the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Co upheld and the instant regular second appeal is dismissed. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL August 20, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable rendered by both the Courts below is upheld and the instant regular second appeal is dismissed. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No urts below is AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.01 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh