Delhi District Court
Shri Balbir Singh vs Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma on 26 July, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM CHAUDHARY, ADJ03, SAKET COURT,
NEW DELHI
CS No. 501/12
Unique I D No.: 02406C0388402010
Shri Balbir Singh
S/o late Shri Laik Ram,
R/o H. No. 52, Khanpur Extension,
New Delhi62 ........Plaintiff
Versus
Shri Rajesh Kumar Verma
S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Verma,
R/o H. No. A260,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sector1, (Tigri)
Delhi110062 .....Defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 06.12.2010
DATE OF RESERVING FOR JUDGMENT/ORDER : 21.07.2014
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2014
SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF CPC FOR RECOVERY OF RS.5,24,000/
(Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Four Thousand only)
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order/judgment I proceed to disposed off the application filed by the defendants, under order 37 rule 3 Sub rule (5) read with section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of leave to defend.
2. The plaintiff filed the present suit under order 37 Code of Civil Procedure, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,24,000/ along with pendenlite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff and defendant had cordial and friendly relation with each other for the last many years and in December 2007 defendant approached the plaintiff fro a friendly loan of Rs.10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to purchase a property. The plaintiff managed to give Rs.5,00,000/ 2 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to defendant on 08.12.2007 and defendant executed two promissory notes dated 08.02.2007 for Rs.2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) each in favour of the plaintiff.
4. It was further alleged that on 10.12.2007 the defendant again approached the plaintiff and requested for further loan as he had to purchase a property at Khanpur, Delhi and was short of payment of money to pay stamp duty. That accordingly plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs.24,000/ (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand only) to defendant for stamp duty.
5. It was also alleged that plaintiff demanded back his money on several occasions but defendant always avoided to repay the loan. It was also averred that plaintiff approached the defendant in the 1st week of January, 2009 for repayment of loan and the defendant assured that he would pay the debt by mid of July 2009 by selling his property at Khanpur.
6. It was further averred the plaintiff again approached the defendant for repayment of loan and defendant issued a cheque No. 966459 dated 15.07.2009 for Rs. 24,000/ drawn on State Bank of India in partial discharging his liability, and assured that the cheque would be honoured on presentation. However, when plaintiff presented the said cheque with his banker on 21.07.2009 for encashment, the same was dishonoured with remarks "insufficient funds".
7. It was also averred that after the receipt of the said dishonoured cheque, the plaintiff approached the defendant for the payment amount of dishonoured cheque but the defendant avoided to talk on the said issue. Thus, plaintiff got a legal demand notice dated 03.08.2009 served upon the defendant thereby calling upon the defendant to make the payment of the amount dishonoured cheque within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant but 3 inspite of the receipt of the legal notice, the defendant failed to make the payment of the said dishonoured cheque, thus, the plaintiff having no other alternative filed a criminal complaint against the defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
8. It was also averred that notwithstanding the pendency of the said criminal complaint case, the plaintiff again approached the defendant and requested him to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque along with interest as well as the remaining loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) but the defendant did not do so.
9. It was also alleged that the plaintiff having no other efficacious remedy and by way of abandon precaution, got issued another legal demand notice dated 18.08.2010 on the defendant through his counsel, thereby calling upon the defendant to make the payment of the entire loan amount of Rs.5,24,000/( Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Only) within 7 days of the receipt of notice. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant but inspite of the receipt of the said legal demand notice, the defendant failed to comply with the contents of the same.
10. It was also contended the defendant has withheld the legitimate and legal dues of the plaintiff without any reason and justification, hence the defendant is also liable to pay interest upon the unpaid and outstanding amount at the rate of 18% per annum which is payable under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. The defendant is liable to pay pendentelite and future interest to the plaintiff at the same rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 04.12.2010 till the date of its realization.
11. It was also stated that defendant is liable to pay the principal amount of Rs.5,24,000/ along with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of its realization.
12. It was alleged that the present suit is based upon the cheque 4 bearing no.966459 drawn on State Bank of India, and on the two promissory notes both dated 08.12.2007 issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration which are a Negotiable Instruments under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, hence the present suit of the plaintiff is liable to be tried under the summary procedure of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
13. It was also averred that no relief which does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure has been claimed in the present suit.
14. The defendant on being served with the summons in the prescribed format filed appearance, thereafter on having served with the summons for judgment filed an application for leave to defend, alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend. The averments made for condonation of delay are that defendant received copy of the application u/o 37 Rule 4 CPC on 22.12.2012. Thereafter, courts closed for winter vacation till 01.01.2013. It was also alleged that as complete set of application was not supplied to defendant, the leave to defend could not be filed. It was further alleged that defendant received complete set of the application only on 30.05.2013, and 07.06.2013 was the last working day as court closed for summer vacation till 30.06.2013. The application was thereafter filed on the earliest occasion on 01.07.2013.
15. The application was opposed by ld. Counsel for plaintiff stating that all the averments were misconceived. It was further alleged that no justifiable cause had been disclosed to condone the delay. I have heard and perused the record in view of the submissions made, the delay is condoned in the interest of justice.
16. The averrments made in the application for leave to defend which is under consideration are that defendant had never taken loan of Rs.5 lacs or Rs.5.24 lacs from the plaintiff and the plaintiff 5 had forged and fabricated the blank signed documents which were in possession of one private financer at Khanpur, New Delhi who is friend of the plaintiff. It was also averred that when defendant came to know about the said forgery, he (defendant) filed a complaint case U/s 156(3) Cr.PC against the plaintiff and his friend, Paliwal which is pending adjudication before MM, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
17. It was also averred that the defendant used to run PCO/STD/ISD Booth shop at his house no. A260261, Sector1, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi since the year 1999 to year 2008 for his livelihood. It was further contended that plaintiff was known to the father of the defendant and plaintiff was also known for giving money to the people on very high interest against security like plot, house etc.
18. It was further averred that in the year 2005, the defendant took a personal loan of Rs. 10,000/ from Mr. Paliwal to be paid back in daily installments of Rs.100 per day and the defendant repaid Rs. 12,000/. It was further averred that at the time of grant of said loan, Mr. Paliwal obtained signatures of the defendant on various blank loan papers as per usual practice of the financer. It was also averred that Mr. Paliwal also took a cheque of Rs.12,000/ from the defendant as security for the said loan.
19. It was further averred that after repayment of first loan with interest, the defendant took second personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/ from said Mr. Paliwal to be repaid in daily installments of Rs.200/ per day. It was also averred that again Mr. Paliwali obtained signatures of the defendant on various blank papers having revenue stamp tickets affixed on it and a cheque of Rs.24,000/ towards security for the loan with only amount filled in and bearing signatures of defendant. It was further averred that the defendant repaid the second loan and requested Mr. Paliwal to return the cheques and blank signed documents, but Mr. Paliwal avoided to do so on one pretext or the other stating that the same had been 6 misplaced in his office and he would return the same later.
20. It was also alleged that in the year 2004, the defendant required some funds for meeting the expenses of marriage of his sister. The plaintiff who was on family terms with the father of defendant offered to advance loan against property, thus, as the property No. A261, J. J. Colony, Tigri was in the name of the defendant, he (defendant) agreed to mortgage the same. It was also averred that plaintiff asked the defendant to reach the office of sub registrar, accordingly, he (the defendant) with his parents reached the office of Sub Registrar, Mehrauli, New Delhi in April2014 and was made to sign a purported deed of mortgage but defendant was not allowed to read it on the pretext that as Sub Registrar had to leave the office and deed would not be registered, if time is wasted. Plaintiff promised to supply a copy of same to defendant but the same was never supplied. The plaintiff gave only Rs. 2,63,000/ Lacs to defendant and the balance amount of Rs.37,000/ was deducted towards interest.
21. It was also averred that the defendant kept on paying very high rate of interest to the plaintiff which was increasing day by day. That the defendant then informed plaintiff that he was not in a position to pay exorbitant rate of interest and sought permission of plaintiff to mortgage part of his property A261 Tigri New Delhi to repay the loan and plaintiff consented to the same. The defendant accordingly, mortgaged his property bearing No. A261, ground floor, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi to one Smt. Sadhna Gupta for Rs.5 lacs vide mortgage deed dated 19.01.2006 and after receiving Rs. 5 lacs from Smt. Sudha Gupta, the defendant along with his parents went to the house of plaintiff on 20.01.2006 and repaid Rs.3 lacs in cash to defendant and demanded a receipt for the same. The plaintiff however, avoided to issue a receipt neither he returned the original title documents and informed that original papers had been misplaced and the receipt of Rs.3 lacs along with original paper 7 of mortgage would be handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant on the following day. However, the plaintiff neither issued receipt of Rs.3 lacs nor handed over the original papers (title documents) of the property No. A261, J.J. Colony, Tigri, New Delhi despite various requests.
22. It was further averred that on 22.04.2011, one police official visited the house of defendant and informed that warrants had been issued against him in case titled 'Balbir singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar Verma' filed U/s 138 N.I. Act and the defendant then came to know that the cheque of Rs.24,000/ and documents taken by Paliwal had been misused, forged and fabricated either by the plaintiff or Mr. Paliwal or any other person at their and on the basis of the same the present suit has been filed. It was alleged that the facts disclose show that defendant has a bonafide defence as such unconditional leave to defend be granted.
23. In support of his contentions defendant had placed reliance upon AIR 1976 Allahabad 23, titled as Ch. Birbal Singh Vs. Harphool Khan & Ors. Wherein it has been held as follows: Another question which arises for consideration is whether the defendants had admitted execution of pronote and the receipt. In their written statement they categorically denied that they had borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or executed any pronote or receipt in his favour. According to them, the plaintiff had obtained their thumb marks on blank papers in connection with the contribution of costs towards construction of a joint wall. Therefore, there is no scope for argument that the defendants had admitted execution of the pronote and the receipt in their written statement. On the back of pronote and the receipt the learned counsel for the defendants had simply endorsed "only thumb impression admitted the rest denied". It makes it clear that the defendants admitted only thumb marks on these documents and not that they had thumb marked after the documents were written out and the burden 8 remained on the plaintiff to prove this fact. Reference may be made to the case of Thakur Lal Vs. Ram Adhar, (1968 All LJ 4801 in which it was held that mere admission of putting signatures and thumb marks on a blank sheet of paper does not amount to an admission of execution. In such circumstances it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove due execution of the pronote and it is only when due execution is established that a presumption under Section118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be raised. When the initial burden is not discharged by the plaintiff, there is no question of raising presumption in favour of the plaintiff.
24. The plaintiff filed reply to the application denying all the averments and contentions of the defendant and stated that the defendant has not been able to give even a single instance to substantiate his averrments in the application and the same is liable to be dismissed as he has no bonafide defence.
25. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for parties and perused the record. The present suit is based on promissory notes and cheque and was thus, covered under Order 37 CPC. In this regard it is relevant to refer to Order 37 Rule 1 (2) CPC which relates to classes of suit to which the order applies and is reproduced as under : "(2) Subject to the provisions of subrule (1), the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely:
(a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes:
(b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover adebt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest, arising:
(i) On a written contract; Or
(ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or
(iii) On a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only."9
26. Thus, the present suit falls under order 37 CPC. The averments made by defendant are that the entire story set up by plaintiff is false and concocted and plaintiff or one Mr. Paliwal had forged and fabricated blank documents bearing signatures of defendant which were in possession of one private financer, Paliwal who was friend of plaintiff and filed the present suit. It was also stated that a Criminal Complaint under Section 403/465/467/468/471/34 IPC was filed by defendant against the plaintiff which is pending.
27. The contention of defendant was also that he never executed the promissory notes nor took the loan of Rs.5,00,000/ or Rs. 5,20,000/ as alleged and the promissory notes were forged and fabricated. It was also alleged that cheque of Rs. 24,000/ was never given to plaintiff but was given to Sh. Paliwal at the time of grant of loan of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and it had been misused.
28. The next contention of defendant was that one of promissory notes for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ does not bear date thus, the contention of plaintiff that it was executed on 8.12.2007 is false. No doubt that one of the promissory notes does not bears any date. In this regard the contentions raised on behalf of plaintiff was that when plaintiff gave the loan of Rs.5,00,000/ to defendant he (the defendant) executed two promissory notes of Rs.2,50,000/ each on 08.12.2007. However, it was submitted on behalf of defendant that both the promissory notes were forged and fabricated, though he admitted his signatures on the same.
29. In a criminal complaint under Section 138 N. I. Act filed by plaintiff against the defendant, plaintiff stated in his cross examination that he had given a loan of Rs.5,24,000/ to the defendant in cash. Plaintiff/complainant denied that at time of giving of loan of Rs.5,24,000/, his financial status was not sound. Plaintiff also denied that the signatures of defendant/accused were 10 taken on blank paper and thereafter, the contents of promissory notes and cheques were filled. The contentions raised on behalf of plaintiff was that the promissory notes was taken as security at the time of grant of loan. He also denied that a blank cheque was given by defendant to him.
30. Against the cogent evidence produced by plaintiff, there is oral denial of defendant which is not supported any corroborative evidence. The defendant has not denied his signatures on the promissory note as such, I am of the opinion that both the promissory notes were executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff as security in lieu of loan advanced by plaintiff to defendant and the cheque of Rs.24,000/ was also issued towards discharge of liability. The contentions of the defendant that the promissory notes and cheques were forged and fabricated is without any basis as defendant had admitted his signatures on the same. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for defendant that defendant was made to sign some blank documents bearing revenue stamp affixed on the same in the office of SubRegistrar, Mehrauli, New Delhi on the pretext of mortgage of his house No. A 26, Ambedkar Colony, Tigri, New Delhi, does not stand substantiated. The contention of defendant that he had given cheque of Rs. 24,000/ to one Paliwal is also not supported by any cogent evidence. Moreover, the contention of defendant that he repaid Rs. 3 Lakhs as well as Rs. 24,000/is also not supported by any cogent and reliable evidence. Defendant has also not filed any document to show that he asked the plaintiff to return the cheque and issue receipt of Rs. 3 Lakhs.
31. The crucial question that needs consideration is whether the defence raised by defendant raise any triable issues or the pleas raised are sham, so as to refuse the leave to contest. While deciding an application for leave to defend under order 37 CPC it is to be seen whether the defence is bonafide and genuine. The court has to exercise the discretion judiciously and in consonance with the 11 principles of natural justice. In this regard it has been held in AIR1977 SC 577 , titled as M/s Mechalec Engineers & Manufacturers Vs. Basic Equipments Corporation, as under : The following principles are to be followed while considering the question of granting leave to defend:
(a) If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
(b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bonafide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
(c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he has a defence, yet, shews such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff 's claim the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such as case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security.
(d) If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend.
(e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the plaintiff 12 is entitled to leave to sign judgment, the Court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such condition and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence."
32. It has also been held in 2013 (137) DRJ 206, titled as Satyendra Jain & Ors. vs. Omway Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. & Ors as follows: "In my view, no. I have recently in judgment dated 1st February 2013, in CS (OS) No. 1480/2009 (corrected and released on 4 th March, 2013) titled Chemical Systems Technologies (India ) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Simbhaoli Suger Mills Ltd. held that unless the Courts construe pleadings in commercial disputes, taking note of the modern prevalent business practices, they will be failing in their duty towards trade and commerce, flourishing whereof depends upon expeditious disposal of disputes. The pleadings and transactions of commercial persons cannot be viewed on the same principles as applicable to transactions between family members or laypersons. A commercial/ business person who has signed documents and issued cheques in pursuance thereto cannot be lightly allowed to shake off the effect of such documents. We are here not dealing with villagers but with astute streetsmart, hardnosed, shrewd businessmen. The Court cannot be blind to the prevalent business practices and environment and cannot afford to continue to decide modern day transactions of ancient principles/ precedents. If the Courts continue to do so, it will be a great disservice to the administration of the justice delivery system which will then be forced to look at unconstitutional dispute resolution mechanisms. The Courts have to necessarily keep pace with the innovations of businesses and business practices and the Court will always be slow to find that the written agreement does not represent the actual agreement between the 13 parties on the matters which it addresses. This is necessary, both to promote commercial certainty and to prevent parties from achieving what is effectively rectification without proving a common intention. Judge, Learned Hand as far back as in James Baird Co. V. Gimbel Bros., Inc. 64 F 2d 344, 346 said that in commercial transactions it does not in the end promote justice to seek strained interpretations in aid of those who do not protect themselves. The same sentiment was echoed in Allied Communications Corporation V. Continental Cellular Corporation Manu/FEFC/0637/1987 where it was observed that when the transaction is commercial, the parties sophisticated and the contract itself detailed, it is wise for the Courts to rely on express language than to imply a promise on their own."
33. It has also been held in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2885 titled as Ms. V K Enterprises Vs. M/s Shiva Steels as follows: "Order XXXVII CPC has been included in the Code of Civil Procedure in order to allow a person, who has a clear and undisputed claim in respect of any monetary dues, to recover the dues quickly by a summary procedure instead of taking the long route of a regular suit. The Court have consistently held that if the affidavit filed by defendant discloses a triable issue that is at lease plausible, leave should be granted, but when the defence raised appears to be moonshine and sham, unconditional leave to defend cannot be granted. What is required to be examined for grant of leave is whether the defence taken in the application under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 CPC makes out a case, which if established, would be a plausible defence in a regular suit. In matters relating to dishonour of cheques, the aforesaid principle becomes more relevant as that cheques are issued normally for liquidation of dues which are admitted. In the instant case, the defence would have been plausible had it not been for the fact that the allegations relating to the interpolation of the cheque is 14 without substance and the ledger account relating to the dues, clearly demonstrated that such dues had been settled between the parties. Moreover, the issuance of the cheque had never been disputed on behalf of the petitioner whose case was that the same had been given on account of security and not for presentation, but an attempt had been made to misuse the same by dishonest means. Against such cogent evidence produced by the plaintiff/respondent, there is only an oral denial which is not supported by any corroborative evidence from the side of the petitioner. On the other hand, the ledger book maintained by the Respondent and settled by the petitioner had been produced on behalf of the respondent in order to prove the transaction in respect of which the cheque in question had been issued by the Petitioner."
34. As the execution of the cheque in question is admitted, presumption arises under section 118 (a) of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short N. I. Act), that it is supported by consideration. Though the presumption is rebuttable as provided under section 139 of N. I. Act.
35. Thus, as issuance of cheque and signatures on promissory notes are admitted the contentions of Ld. Counsel for defendant that it was necessary for plaintiff to prove due execution of the documents and only then presumption under section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act would arise is without merits. In this regard it is pertinent to note that defendant had agreed to give security in the form of promissory note to secure the loan given by plaintiff and transaction of commercial nature could not be viewed on the same principles as applicable to transactions between lay persons and it is the duty of court to promote commercial activities as held in 2013 (137) DRJ 206 (Supra).
36. Section 118 (a) and 139 of N. I. Act which are relevant are 15 reproduced as below:
Section 118 Presumptions as to negotiable instruments Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
(a) of consideration that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;
Section 139. Presumption in favour of holder: It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
37. Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, defines "Shall Presume" as under : "Shall Presume". Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved.
38. The word proved and disproved have been defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act which is as follows: "Proved" A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
"Disproved" A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its nonexistence so probable that a prudent 16 man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.
39. Thus, applying the definition of proved or disproved to the principle of Section 118 (a) of N. I. Act the court shall presume a Negotiable Instrument to be for consideration unless and until it is prima facie established that consideration does not exist or that non existence of consideration is so probable that a prudent man ought not to believe that it exists.
40. It was incumbent on the defendant to show the defence raise triable issue which is at lease plausible to be entitled to leave to defend. Thus, as the issuance of cheque has not been disputed and defendant also admits his signatures on promissory notes. I am of the view that cheque was given for discharge of liability and the promissory notes were given as a security for loan. Moreover, the promissory notes show that loan of Rs. 5 lakhs was advanced to defendant by plaintiff on an undertaking of defendant to repay the loan amount. Thus, in my view the defence raised by the defendant are without any foundation and do not disclose any triable issue that is at least plausible. The defence appears to be moonshine and shame, accordingly, the application for leave to defend stands dismissed.
41. Resultantly, I pass a decree for a sum of Rs.5,24,000/(Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Only) with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization along with the cost of suit, in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (POONAM CHAUDHARY)
on 26.07.2014. ADJ03, SAKET COURT COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
17
CS No. 501/12
Balbir Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar Verma
26.07.2014.
Present: Counsels for parties.
Vide separate judgment announced in open court, the application for leave to defend stands dismissed and I passed a decree for a sum of Rs.5,24,000/(Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Only) with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization along with the cost of suit, in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Decreesheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.
(POONAM CHAUDHARY) ADJ03 (SOUTH), SAKET COURT NEW DELHI/26.07.2014.