IN THE HI 229 Harvinder Sing Gurpreet Sing CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, the judgment Additional Dis 14.09.2011 whereby the s along with int till its realisa injunction, dir him, was decr the learned Ci ₹85,000/– wit suit till its re E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Singh @ Soni Vs. Singh HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advo for the respondent. *** PTA, J. The plaintiff is in second ap ent and decree dated 09.04.20 l District Judge (F.T.C.) Gurdaspur 1 passed by learned Civil Judge the suit filed by the plaintiff/appell interest at the rate of 9% per annu alisation with consequential relie , directing the defendant to return t decreed with costs. Vide judgement d Civil Judge held the plaintiff entit with interest at the rate of 9% per s realisation; and further manda D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5187-2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA Advocate d appeal before this Court against 4.2014 passed by the learned reversing the judgment dated dge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur pellant for recovery of ₹85,000/– annum from the date of filing suit relief of decree of mandatory urn the passport of the plaintiff to ent and decree dated 14.9.2011, entitled to recover the amount of per annum from date of filing of ndate was issued, directing the 9 nst ed ed ur – uit ry to 11, of of he SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document defendant to r from the date 2. status before referred to as 3. the appellant/ having landed The sister of t they are know therefore in th requested the demanded Rs month of Dec defendant at defendant. De for the plainti plaintiff filed defendant. 4. filed written replication wa parties, follow to return the passport of the plaint ate of the judgement. The parties shall hereinaft fore the learned trial Court i.e. as the plaintiff; and the responden The case of the plaintiff a lant/plaintiff is an unemployed you ded property in the village and his b of the defendant is married in the nown to each other. The defendan in the month of November, plaintiff the defendant with request to pro Rs. 85,000/- to arrange visa for December 2007, plaintiff and his t at village Virk and paid Rs. 85,000 t. Despite taking payment, neither aintiff nor he returned back the mo filed instant suit for recovery o Upon notice, the defendan ten statement denying the averm was filed by the plaintiff. On the llowing issues were framed: - laintiff to him within three months inafter be referred to as per their e. The appellant herein shall be dent as defendant. iff as set out in the plaint is that young man, whereas his father is his brother is also running a shop. the village of plaintiff; therefore dant is working as a travel agent, intiff and his brother Malkiat Singh provide him job. The defendant for Dubai for plaintiff and in the his brother visited the house of ,000/- along with passport to the ther the defendant arranged visa money to the plaintiff. Thus, the ry of Rs. 85,000/- against the ndant had put in appearance and erments made in the plaint. No the basis of the pleadings of the 9 ths eir be at is op. re nt, gh nt he of he isa he he nd No he SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo 5. adduced by th the learned Ci Rs.85,000/- wi realisation; an return the pas date of the j Additional Dis decree dated learned trial C 6. a bare perusa defendant ha Rs.85,000/- on arranged visa appellant desp “1. Whether the plaintiff is en 85,000/- along with interest @ for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entit directing the defendant to return him ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not mainta OPD (v) Relief.” On the basis of oral a y the parties, the suit of the plainti d Civil Judge, and he was held entit with interest @ 9% per annum fro ; and further mandate was issued passport of the plaintiff to him w he judgment. In appeal filed by t l District Judge, (FTC), Gurdaspur ted 09.04.2014 set aside the decr ial Court and dismissed the suit of th Learned counsel for the ap rusal of the facts as set out in had played fraud upon the app on the pretext of arranging of vi visa nor he returned the said am despite repeated requests. It is su s entitled to recovery of rupees st @ 9% per annum as prayed entitled to mandatory injunction turn the passport of the plaintiff to aintainable in the present form ? al and documentary evidence aintiff was decreed with costs by ntitled to recover the amount of from the filing of the suit till its sued directing the defendant to within three months from the by the defendant, the learned ur vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.09.2011 of the of the plaintiff with costs. e appellant-plaintiff submits that in the plaint, shows that the appellant and cheated him of of visa for Dubai but neither he amount of Rs.85,000/- to the is submitted that therefore, the 9 ees ed ion to ? SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document suit of the app Division), Gurd deserves to be Judge has com judgment of appreciation to be set asi appellant/plai shows that t Rs.85,000/- considering m reasoned judg Judge (Jr. Divn 7. submits that t based on con decreed only were misread evidence on Judge. It is acc 8. 9. perused the ca appellant was rightly decreed by th Gurdaspur vide judgment and dec o be restored. It is submitted that th committed grave error while sett of the learned trial Court on the on of material evidence, thus, the i aside. It is submitted that the p plaintiff as well as the PWs exam at the defendant has played frau from the plaintiff. But the ld material evidence available on th judgment and decree dated 14.09. Divn) Gurdaspur. On the other hand, learne at the judgment dated 14.09.2011 conjectures. It is submitted that t nly because discrepant statements o read by the learned trial Court. It on record was misconstrued and/ accordingly prayed that the presen No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. Page 4 of 9 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior decree dated 14.09.2011 which at the learned Additional District setting aside the well-reasoned e basis of conjectures and non- the impugned judgment is liable e perusal of the testimony of examined by the plaintiff itself fraud and cheated amount of e ld. Appellate court without n the record set aside the well .09.2011 passed by the ld. Civil arned counsel for the defendant 011 of the learned trial Court is at the suit of the plaintiff was nts of the prosecution witnesses t. It is submitted that valuable and/or ignored by the ld. Civil sent appeal be dismissed. aised on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and 9 SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. the defendan learned trial surmises; and had been irrev prove that the ever sent anyo to prove that sending peopl that the defen visas for goi produced by been made in doing the bu defendant in h plaintiff contro statement. In defendant. 11. or anything on over Rs.85,000 or by cheque any transactio I find merit in the submiss dant. Perusal of the record shows rial Court is indeed based on c and the suit of the plaintiff was dec irrevocably established on record th t the defendant was doing the bu anyone abroad. Admittedly, no evid that the defendant was doing the eople abroad. Even there is no doc efendant was doing the business going abroad. There are no c by the plaintiff to prove his case. e in the plaint and during oral evide business of travel agency; whic in his written statement. Even no ntroverting the assertions made by In this regard, there is no other ca Further admittedly there is g on record to indicate in what man ,000/- to the defendant - whether que or by any other mode. Admitt ction have been brought on record missions advanced on behalf of ows that the judgment of the n conjectures and far-fetched decreed, despite the fact that it rd that the plaintiff had failed to business of travel agent or he evidence was led by the plaintiff the business of travel agent or documentary evidence to show ess of travel agent or providing o company/agency documents ase. Merely bald statement has evidence that the defendant was hich was duly denied by the no replication was filed by the e by the defendant in his written r case of such nature against the re is nothing stated in the plaint manner the plaintiff had handed ther payment was made in cash mittedly no documents to show cord by the plaintiff. Thus, there 9 SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document is nothing me made to the d 12. how the plai learned trial C payment of Rs of PW2/Mukh gave Rs.85,00 overlooked th had stated tha Singh. The l contradictory fact that the had borrowed thereupon. Th arranged the initiated by th 13. handed over whatsoever on possessed a p the entire proc of passport. mentioned in the plaint as to in he defendant. Moreover, there is nothin plaintiff arranged/procured the a ial Court came to the conclusion Rs.85,000/- to the defendant mer ukhtar Singh who admitted in his ,000/- to the plaintiff. Howeve d the fact that even PW3/Malkiat Si that Rs.85,000/- was given to the e learned trial court failed to ory testimonies. Even further, the le the plaintiff in his cross-examinatio wed money from ‘someone’, howev Thus, it could not be clear on re the amount of ₹85,000/–. Even no y the plaintiff against the defendant It had further been alleged ver his passport to the respondent er on record to remotely indicate th a passport; b) no passport numbe proceedings; and c) admittedly no F rt. In this scenario, the mandate in what manner payment was thing on record to show as to he amount of ₹85,000/–. The ion that the plaintiff had made merely on the basis of testimony n his cross-examination that he ever, the learned trial Court at Singh in his cross-examination the plaintiff by his father Ravail to reconcile the above said e learned trial court ignored the ation as PW1 admitted that he owever, was unable to elaborate n record as to how the plaintiff n no criminal proceedings were dant. eged by the plaintiff that he had dent. However, there is nothing te that: a) the plaintiff even ever mber is mentioned anywhere in no FIR was lodged regarding loss date of the learned trial Court 9 SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document directing the within three m the learned lo and 12 of the the defendant to return the passp ee months was clearly unsustainab d lower Appellate Court are releva the judgment dated 09.04.2014, wh “11. Perusal of pleadings and evid court file patently suggest that j challenge have been passed by proper appreciation of evid examinations of witnesses have The entire thrust of plaintiff versi 85,000/- and passport by him to that he is knowing defendant sinc village Narpur where plaintiff examination of PW-1 shows no su this cross-examination defenda matrimonial place of his aunt and which might had brought plaintiff other is missing in the evidence o to show if any sister of defendan Plaintiff also claims that defend cross-examination as PW-1 plain name of the shop and agency fo was working as an agent. Thi examination reveals that there where he allegedly had arrang silent regarding the source from 85,000/-. He also nowhere dep Mukhtiar Singh from who arranged/borrowed any amount accompanied plaintiff and PW-3 t assport of the plaintiff to him inable. In this regard, findings of levant as contained in Paras 11 , which are as under:- d evidence available in the lower hat judgment and decree under by the Learned court without evidence on record. Cross- ave not been given any weight. version is around delivery of Rs. m to defendant. Plaintiff claims t since latter's sister is married in intiff is residing. The cross- no such iota of evidence. During endant was asked about the t and not of his sister. The basis intiff and defendant before each ce on record. Plaintiff has failed ndant resides in village Narpur. fendant was a travel agent. In plaintiff has failed to state the cy for which allegedly defendant . This concise but terse cross- ere is no -evidence as to from ranged Rs. 85,000/-. Plaintiff is rom where he had arranged Rs. depicted the name of PW-2 whom allegedly he had ount or if this PW-2 ever had 3 to the house of defendant. 9 SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo 12. Another bewildering developm of PWs is that none of them is a 85,000/- were arranged by the pl be observed that a person who a anybody must had disclosed the was asked in cross-examination. gave vague reply that he had a "somebody". Had such lending plaintiff, he would not have ad somebody". Such cross-examinat had no knowledge about the n brings out that no such borrowing 2 Mukhtiar Singh presented a n cross-examination that he had le for the purpose. This witness state amount after withdrawing from came on record. It is relevant to nowhere named in plaint. The cr again at variance to that of rem another version by claiming tha paid to plaintiff by his father Rav owned by plaintiff. These all cir with the lower court to believ arranged by the plaintiff and t defendant. Then there is no proof holding any passport. No passp issuing office is part of the reco possessing a passport and had g be taken as proved by default of m of PW-1, about delivery of passpo elopment available in the version is aware as to from where Rs. he plaintiff. At the outset it must ho arranged such amount from the name of such lender when tion. However, when asked, he ad arranged this amount from ing been there in presence of e addressed such lender as " ination of PW-1 infers that he he name of such lender which wing ever had taken place. PW- a new picture while stating in ad lent Rs. 85,000/- to plaintiff stated that he had collected this rom the bank. No such evidence nt to mention here that PW-2 is he cross-examination of PW-3 is f remaining PWs. He presented that entire Rs. 85,000/- were Ravail Singh. This version is not ll circumstances left no reasons elieve that Rs. 85,000/- were nd then were paid by him to proof on file if plaintiff had been passport number nor name of record. Mere claiming he was ad given it to defendant cannot lt of mere non-cross-examination ssport, on the part of defendant. 9 SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14. dispute or co Appellate Cou 15. 16. 15.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo Perusal of cross-examination of D regarding U.K visa pertains to h not about any visa application Trial court misread this part of e basing its opinion on such piece the judgment.” Learned counsel for the ap r controvert the above said evide Court orgive any satisfactory explan In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No of DW-1 reveals that the answer to his own visa application and ion regarding plaintiff. Learned t of evidence thereby ultimately iece of evidence in para no. 8 of e appellant/plaintiff is unable to vidence/findings of the ld. First planation for the same. resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 9 SUNENA 2025.01.24 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document