LAWS(P&H)-2026-2-247

GURNAM SINGH Vs. PARGAT SINGH BRAR

Decided On February 10, 2026
GURNAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
Pargat Singh Brar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the present civil revision, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dtd. 6/9/2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint (Annexure P-1), on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,50,967.75, pleading that an amount of Rs.20,00,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff to defendants No.1 and 2 on 13/11/2015, which was thereafter transferred by them to defendants No.3 and 4, but has not been repaid to date. An FIR came to be registered against the defendants, pursuant to which defendant No.2 filed a bail application titled Harvinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide order dtd. 9/7/2020, directed Harvinder Kaur to join the investigation and granted her interim bail, which she duly complied with. During the course of proceedings, Harvinder Kaur, through counsel, admitted liability to the extent of Rs.6,00,000.00. On 14/8/2020, a cheque for Rs.6,00,000.00 in favour of Pargat Singh was produced by the Investigating Officer; however, vide order dtd. 11/9/2020, the bail application was dismissed and the cheque was directed to be returned. The said proceedings disclose an admission of receipt of Rs.20,00,000.00 by way of bank transaction, rendering the principal amount, along with interest, outstanding and payable. The suit was instituted on 6/6/2022. An application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation was thereafter filed and, upon contest, dismissed vide the impugned order.

(3.) Notice of the present revision petition was duly served upon the respondent vide order dtd. 19/1/2026; however, despite effective service, the respondent has chosen not to enter appearance, and the petition has consequently remained uncontested.