BHANWARA RAM Vs. SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil second appeal under Sec. 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment dtd. 26/4/2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No. 18/2022 whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 5/5/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Suit No. 8/2017 was affirmed.

(2.) The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present second appeal are that a suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,100.00 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent with the averments that the defendantappellant took a loan of Rs.1,05,000.00 from the plaintiffrespondent as he had to repay the loan taken from the KrayaVikaraya Sahakari Samiti, Budhawalia and the bank. For this purpose, an agreement (Rukka) was executed on 4/6/2014 with a condition that the defendant-appellant shall repay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff-respondent within four days, but since he did not repay the same, the plaintiff-respondent made a complaint before the Police Station, Thaladka. On 10/6/2014, the defendantappellant was summoned in the Police Station where in the presence of respectable persons of the society, the defendantappellant accepted that he has taken loan from the plaintiffrespondent but could not repay the same and the same was written on an application dtd. 10/6/2014, which was submitted by the defendant-appellant to the Incharge of the Police Station concerned after appending his thumb impression. It was also stated that the defendant-appellant shall repay the loan amount within 2-4 days and in case of delay, he would pay interest at the rate of 2%. Despite repeated endeavours, the defendantappellant failed to repay the loan amount. The agreement (Rukka) was registered on 29/6/2014. Further, since the defendant-appellant was not repaying the loan, therefore, an FIR No.419/2014 was lodged at Police Station, Rawatsar and the investigating agency after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the defendant-appellant. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent preferred the suit seeking recovery of loan amount alongwith interest.

(3.) Learned Trial Court allowed the suit of the plaintiffrespondent. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned courts below, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal.