Subhash Vs Reena Rana

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, UNA HP
Sh. Subhash Chand age …… years s/o Sh. Ranjit Singh mar R/o
Village Bangarh , Tehsil & Distt. Una (HP)
……Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Reena Rana w/o Sh. Ranjit Singh R/o Village Bangarh ,
Tehsil & Distt. Una (HP).
………. Respondent
Civil Appeal No. …….. of 2024
Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree

dated 08.06.2023 passed by Sh. Sandeep Singh Sihag, Senior Civil
Judge Court No. I, Una District Una in civil suit No. 80/2016 in case
titled “Reena Rana vs Subhash Chand”, vide which the suit of the
plaintiff/ Respondent has been decreed.
No. & date of original Suit. Date Value of Value Amount of
C.S.No. Date of Date of of the suit of court fee
instituti decisio fillin & appeal appeal affixed on
on in n in g the for for the appeal
first first appea jurisdicti court
court. court l on fee
80/2016/.26.02.2016.8.06.2023 21.03 Rs.1,50,0 Rs.416 Rs. 4160/-

.2024 00/- 0/-
Claim in appeal
To set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by Sh.
Sandeep Singh Sihag, Senior Civil Judge Court No. I, Una District
Una in civil suit No. 80/2016 in case titled “Reena Rana vs Subhash
Chand” and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs/ Respondents, by
accepting this appeal.
Grounds of appeal: -
1. That the impugned judgment & decree dated 08.06.2023 passed
by Sh. Sandeep Singh Sihag, Senior Civil Judge Court No. I,
Una District Una in civil suit No. 80/2016 in case titled “Reena
Rana vs Subhash Chand”, vide which the suit of the
plaintiff/Respondent, has been decreed, is against the law &
facts.
2. That the ld. Lower has passed the impugned judgment and
decree on surmises and conjectures.
3. That the findings of the Ld. Lower Court on issues No. 1 to 3

and 3(a) are not as per the record. There was no ground to
accept the claim of the plaintiff/respondent and to negate the
version of the defendant/appellant on the basis of oral statement
of the plaintiff. The Ld Court has failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff/respondent is a businessman and is also taxpayer but he
has not produced the documentary evidence regarding the
payment of the aforesaid amount alleged to be paid to the
defendant/appellant as consideration amount.
4. That the plaintiff/respondent settled the matter of suit Land

before the Khangi Panchayat dated 14/03/2023 in Rs. 225,000/-
and defendant/applicant paid 1,50.000/- settlement in the
presence of respectable person of panchayat and after that he
also paid the remaing amount but plaintiff/responded not
withdraw the suit.
5. That as per the law of the land no payment of amount more than
Rs. 20,000/- in cash, can be made to any person accept through
negotiable document or through bank transaction. But in this
case the plaintiff/respondent has alleged that they had made the
payment of Rs. 1, 50,000/- in cash only. This transaction is
against the law and as such it is presumed that no such
transaction took place. The Ld Lower court has ignored these
vital issues.
6. The Ld. Lower court has decided the other issues also in
contradiction to each other. The Ld lower court has failed to
appreciate the evidence on record in its right prospective. The
observations of the trial court are certainly against the settled
principles of law. It was mandatory for the Ld. Lower Court to
dismiss the suit. However, the suit was decreed on flimsy &
baseless grounds. Proved as the scriber of the agreement i.e.
Deed writer as well as attesting witness Jitender has not been
examined so as to prove the genuineness & tampering in the
original record & it was the only reason the plaintiff has not
examined these witnesses.
7. That Ld lower Court has also ignored this fact that the alleged
agreement to sell was not legally proved and it was required to
be proved as per law. Moreover the awarded interest rate is also
on higher side.
8. That the findings of the Ld Lower Court on other issues are also
wrong and not sustainable under the law.
9. That the findings of the Ld. Lower Court is against the law as
the Ld. Lower court has not followed the proper procedure and
has also failed to appreciate the legal aspect of the dispute,
hence the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Lower Court is
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
10. That the appeal is within time.
It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment and decree passed by Sh.
Sandeep Singh Sihag, Senior Civil Judge Court No. I, Una District
Una in civil suit No. 80/2016 dated 08.06.2023 vide which suit of the
plaintiff/ Respondent, has been decreed, may please be set aside and
the suit may please be ordered to be dismissed by accepting the
appeal.
Dated:23.05.2022 Appellant
Through counsels
(Anand Sharma & Amit Sawhney)
Advocates
……Appellant
Versus
Application under Order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C for staying the operation of

decree passed by Sh. Sandeep Singh Sihag, Senior Civil Judge Court
No. I, Una District Una in civil suit No. 80/2016 dated 08.06.2023
titled “Reena Rana vs Subhash Chand”.
Sir,
The applicant/appellant submits as under:
1. That the applicant/appellant aggrieved by the judgment

and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by Sh. Sh. Sandeep
Singh Sihag, Senior Civil Judge Court No. I, Una District
Una in civil suit No. 80/2016, in case titled “Reena Rana
vs Subhash Chand” has preferred the appeal before this
Hon’ble Court.
2. That there are arguable points in the appeal and there is

every likelihood that the appeal shall be accepted and the
impugned order of the lower court shall be set aside.
3. That irreparable loss and legal injury will be caused to the

appellant/applicant in case the impugned order is allowed
to be executed or implemented.
4. That the prima-facie case and balance of convenience lies

in favour of the applicant.
5. That this application has been made and filed in good faith
and in bonafide manner. An affidavit is attached.
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the application may kindly be
allowed and the implementation of the impugned order dated
08.06.2023 passed by Sh. Sandeep Singh Sihag, Senior Civil Judge
Court No. I, Una District Una in civil suit No. 80/2016, in case titled
“Reena Rana vs Subhash Chand” may please ordered to be stayed till
the final decision of the appeal in the interest of injustice.
Dated: Applicant
Through Counsels
(Anand Sharma & Amit Sawhney)
Advocates
……Appellant
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I Subhash Chand age …… years s/o Sh. Ranjit Singh mar R/o
Village Bangarh , Tehsil & Distt. Una (HP), do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:-
1. That the accompanying application for staying the
implementation of the impugned order has been drafted as per
my instruction & at my instance & the same has been read over
& explained to me in vernacular.
2. That the contents of the application are true & correct to the best
of my knowledge & nothing material has been concealed there
from.
Dated Deponent
I, above named deponent further solemnly affirm and declare that the
contents of my above said affidavit are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed there from.
Deponent

Subhash Vs Reena Rana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subhash Vs Reena Rana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subhash Vs Reena Rana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, UNA HP

Civil Appeal No. …….. of 2024

Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree

No. & date of original Suit. Date Value of Value Amount of

C.S.No. Date of Date of of the suit of court fee

instituti decisio fillin & appeal appeal affixed on

on in n in g the for for the appeal

first first appea jurisdicti court

court. court l on fee

80/2016/.26.02.2016.8.06.2023 21.03 Rs.1,50,0 Rs.416 Rs. 4160/-

3. That the findings of the Ld. Lower Court on issues No. 1 to 3

4. That the plaintiff/respondent settled the matter of suit Land

10. That the appeal is within time.

(Anand Sharma & Amit Sawhney)

Civil Appeal No. …….. of 2024

Application under Order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C for staying the operation of

The applicant/appellant submits as under:

1. That the applicant/appellant aggrieved by the judgment

2. That there are arguable points in the appeal and there is

3. That irreparable loss and legal injury will be caused to the

4. That the prima-facie case and balance of convenience lies

(Anand Sharma & Amit Sawhney)

Civil Appeal No. …….. of 2024

You might also like