114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 5987-C of 2025; CM No. 5988-C of 2025 in/and RSA No. 5017 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 Om Parkash .......... Appellant Versus District Industrial Centre, Union Territory, Chandigarh, through its General Manager and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. Piyush Gill, Advocate for the applicant/appellant-plaintiff. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM Nos. 5987-C & 5988-C of 2025 Prayer in the present two applications moved on behalf of the applicant-appellant bearing (i) CM No. 5988-C of 2055 is for restoration of the main appeal which stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court; and (ii) CM No. 5987-C of 2025 for condonation of delay of 595 days in filing the aforesaid restoration application. For the reasons stated in both the applications, which are duly supported by the affidavit(s) of learned counsel himself, the same are allowed; the delay of 595 days in filing the restoration application is condoned and the main appeal is ordered to be restored at its original number. DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No. 5987-C of 2025; CM No. 5988-C of 2025 in/and RSA No. 5017 of 2019 (O&M) -2- With the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the main appeal is taken up today itself. MAIN APPEAL The plaintiff is in appeal. [2] By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “First Appellate Court”), whereby an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “trial Court”), dismissing the suit for declaration, instituted at the instance of appellant-plaintiff, was dismissed; thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. [3] For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. [4] Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration while pleading that he approached defendant No. 1 (District Industrial Centre, Union Territory, Chandigarh) with a project and sought loan for Rs.1 lakh under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna (PMYR) Scheme for the year 2003-2004. Vide letter dated 19.03.2004, defendant No.1 sent the application of plaintiff to defendant No.2 (HDFC Bank, Chandigarh), wherein it was stated that the Task Force Committee for the implementation of PMRY Scheme in the Union Territory, Chandigarh has selected appellant-plaintiff in its meeting held on 18.06.2003 and DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No. 5987-C of 2025; CM No. 5988-C of 2025 in/and RSA No. 5017 of 2019 (O&M) -3- recommended a loan of Rs.1,00,000/ for the job work of the Lathe Machine, but he did not receive the amount from defendant No. 2. Earlier defendant No. 3 (Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh) being a lead bank kept on harassing appellant-plaintiff and did not take steps to grant loan to the appellant-plaintiff. It was further pleaded that plaintiff was an unemployed person and for the last so many years, he was running from pillar to post to seek financial assistance but in vain. Hence, the suit. [5] Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement, taking preliminary objections that the appellant-plaintiff did not serve notice under Section 80 CPC prior to filing of the present suit as such, the same was not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that the loan was not sanctioned by the Syndicate Bank, Sector-17, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 27.06.2003 on account of non-fulfillment of income criteria under the PMRY Scheme as the plaintiff was not an unemployed while running unit in the name of M/S Lalit Engg. Works in Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh for last 5-6 years with 6 regular employees. It was further pleaded that Bank of Punjab vide its letter dated 29.03.2004 also returned the case of the appellant-plaintiff with the remarks that during interview with the appellant-plaintiff, as per the field investigation by the bank it was found that he was running a unit and had even applied for additional machinery. It was further submitted that a criminal complaint was also made by the appellant-plaintiff with the Police Headquarter, Sector 9, Chandigarh. It was also pleaded that the appellant- plaintiff submitted a false affidavit dated 27.05.2003 along with his DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No. 5987-C of 2025; CM No. 5988-C of 2025 in/and RSA No. 5017 of 2019 (O&M) -4- application form with respect to income and to the fact that he was unemployed and in fact, the loan was never sanctioned by defendant No.1 and accordingly prayed for dismissal of suit. [5.1] Defendant No. 2 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections on the ground that present suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff failed to serve the notice under Section 80 of CPC upon defendant No.1. On merits, it was submitted that firstly the case of appellant-plaintiff was sent to the Syndicate Bank and the bank rejected his case on the ground of concealment. It was further pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff misused the provision of the scheme meant for unemployed persons having represented himself such for availing the loan facility. The appellant-plaintiff was already running industrial unit under the name and style of M/S Lalit Engineering in Industrial Area, Chandigarh from the last 5-6 years and 5-6 employees were working therein, accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed. [6] Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of defendant Nos. 3 & 4 and they were proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court. [7] Replication controverting the averments made in the written statements was filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether present suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands? OPD 4. Relief.” DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No. 5987-C of 2025; CM No. 5988-C of 2025 in/and RSA No. 5017 of 2019 (O&M) -5- [8] The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 08.04.2016, dismissed the suit, filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff, while deciding Issue No. 1 against the appellant-plaintiff; whereas Issues No. 2 and 3 were not pressed upon by the respondents-defendants. [9] Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-plaintiff filed the first appeal, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 02.07.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal. [10] Impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 02.07.2019 & 08.04.2016 passed by both the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has submitted that the Courts below went wrong while presuming that the income of appellant-plaintiff was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum and thus he was not eligible for loan. He further submits that there was no documentary evidence on record to show that appellant-plaintiff was the owner of M/s Lalit Engineering Works and has employed 6 regular employees for the last 5-6 years nor there was any such report of Surveyor to this effect on record. No other argument has been raised on behalf of the appellant- plaintiff. [11] After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. [12] In the present appeal, it is not disputed that the appellant- plaintiff approached the respondent-department with a project for loan DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No. 5987-C of 2025; CM No. 5988-C of 2025 in/and RSA No. 5017 of 2019 (O&M) -6- amount of Rs.1 lakh under the PMRY Scheme for the year 2003-2004. It is also not disputed that the case of the appellant-plaintiff was considered for job work on Lathe Machine in the Task Force Committee meeting held on 18.06.2003 and it was recommended to Syndicate Bank, Sector-17, Chandigarh vide letter dated 27.06.2003. However, the case of the appellant-plaintiff was returned by the bank with the remarks that the appellant-plaintiff does not fulfill the income criteria under the PMRY Scheme as it was found that appellant-plaintiff was not unemployed; rather running a unit in the name of M/s Lalit Engg. works in Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh for the last 5-6 years with 6 regular employees. Condition No.3 (iii) of the Scheme provides that neither the income of the beneficiary alongwith the spouse nor the income of parents of the beneficiary shall exceed Rs.40,000/- per annum. The appellant-plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that his income was fulfilling the criteria laid down in the Scheme. Further, appellant-plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted that he had obtained separate loan from various banks namely; ICICI Bank, City Finance, HDFC etc. and did not repaid those having defaulted the repayment. As per Clause-4 of the Scheme (Ex. P-1), the assistance under the scheme was not to be provided to a defaulter of any nationalized bank/financial institution/co-operative bank; as such, no case was made out in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. [13] Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and there being no misreading or DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM No. 5987-C of 2025; CM No. 5988-C of 2025 in/and RSA No. 5017 of 2019 (O&M) -7- misinterpretation of either the pleadings or the evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. [14] Since, the main appeal has been decided / dismissed, no orders are required to be passed in the pending application(s) and the same shall stand disposed off. August 28, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.02 19:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document