On 18/11/2019, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan allowed an appeal petition against the decree passed by the first appellate court.
The plaintiff moving the appellate petition had originally filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,63,520 from the defendant as the price of fuel wood. An interest rate of 12% p.a. was also levied. The defendant denied all the allegations and charged the plaintiff for not presenting the true nature of the case in front of the revered court.
The trial court after hearing dismissed the case and constrained the plaintiff to file a case under the first appellate court. The first appellate Court changed the previous decree entirely based on conjectures and assumptions. The first appellate Court questioned the very execution of the subsequent receipt named Ex R-1. The plaintiff himself had not denied the receipt of the Ex R-1. His defence was the sum of 14, 451 which was subsequent to the agreement and that he was yet to receive from the defendant. Careful observation of the receipt gives away the fact that it is stated therein that the plaintiff had nothing else to recover from the defendant of the previous year.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the appeal challenging this verdict of the first appellate court and held that the appeallate court had severely failed to behold the documents Ex. A-1 and the document Ex. R-1 in their right perspective.
Case Reference - Satish Kumar v. Mahant Ram, RSA No. 709 of 2008, decided on 18-11-2019