2026:HHC:23607 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 68 of 2026 Date of decision: 19.06.2026 Shyam Lal ...Appellant. Versus Raja Ram ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 14- N/13 of 2024, dated 13.02.2026, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant/defendant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour dated 04.06.2024 was affirmed, whereby the suit as filed by the plaintiff was decreed. 2. The facts as emerge in the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery against the Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- defendant/ appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- alongwith 12% inerest per annum from 10.01.2015 till the realization of the entire amount from the defendant. The case as set up by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court is that the defendant being known to the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- on 10.01.2015 vide agreement attested by the Notary Public and executed in the presence of witnesses namely Ram Bahadur and Joginder Singh. Further, as per the case of the plaintiff, it was agreed upon between the parties that the aforesaid amount was to be returned on or before 10.07.2025 and on his failure to do so, it was agreed that the defendant would execute a sale deed of his share of land comprised in khata/khatoni No. 94/236, khasra No. 728/69, measuring 05- 13-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Kotga-Kando, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant failed to honour the agreement and neither returned the loan amount nor executed the sale deed and when the defendant avoided his liability, the plaintiff was constrained to issue legal notice to the defendant by making his demand for the redressal of his grievances. Therefore, under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,30,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. -3- 4. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement and raised preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action and locus-standi and jurisdiciton etc. On merits, the factum of loan of Rs. 1,30,000/- and the execution of agreement have been admitted. The case as set up by the defendant is that he is ready to deliver the possession of the suit land as per agreement entered between the parties. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff filed replication wherein the averments as made in the plaint were reiterated. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 26.10.2021 framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with cost of the suit, as prayed for? OPP 2.) Whether the present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the suit has been filed without cause of action and without locus-standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as alleged? OPD 5. Relief.” The learned trial Court directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. -4- 7. The Learned Senior Civil Judge, Paonta Sahib vide its judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,30,000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the amount. 8. Feeling dissatisfied defendant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, on 29.06.2024. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 13.02.2026, dismissed the appeal as preferred by the defendant and affirmed the findings, as returned by the learned trial Court. 9. Still feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the appellant/defendant has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgments and decrees, as passed by the learned courts below, are wrong, erroneous and are liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the findings returned by the learned Courts below are not sustainable. He further submits that the learned courts below have not taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence as a result of which, great prejudice has -5- been caused to the defendant. Therefore, after accepting the present appeal, the suit as filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the judgments and decrees as passed by the learned courts below. He submits that the learned courts below have rightly decreed the suit for recovery in favour of the plaintiff after taking into consideration the entire material placed on record. He would submit that the present appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 13. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is finally decided on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the judgments and decrees as passed by the learned courts below are erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside as there is mis-interpretation, misconstruction and mis-appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, moreso in view of fact that the learned learned trial Court has not discussed the oral evidence as led by the parties. 14. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,30,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum against the defendant on the ground that he borrowed the said amount on 10.01.2015 vide agreement entered between the parties and -6- attested by the Notary Public and the same was executed in the presence of the witnesses namely Ram Bahadur and Joginder Singh. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly and heavily relied upon the fact and has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the learned trial Court which clearly reveals that the learned trial Court has neither appreciated nor discussed the oral evidence as led by the parties. 15. Admittedly, the plaintiff examined four witnesses and defendant Shyam Lal entered into the witness box in order to rebut the case of the plaintiff but surprisingly, the learned trial Court has not bothered to discuss the oral evidence as led by the respective parties. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the learned trial Court dated 04.06.2024 is not sustainable. 16. Without touching the merits of the case on this sole ground, the impugned judgments and decrees as passed by the learned courts below deserves to be quashed and set aside by relegating the parties to learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour by reviving Civil Suit No. 242/1 of 2015 with direction to the learned trial Court that on the basis of evidence which has already been adduced by the -7- respective parties, he/she shall proceed in the matter and take the case to its logical end. Since the civil suit pertains to 2015, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit. 17. With the above observations, after setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the parties are relegated to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. 18. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to remain present before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., on 25.06.2026. Further, the learned counsel for the parties undertake that no unnecessary adjournments shall be sought by either of them. 19. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 19th June, 2026. (kck)