Delhi District Court
JsccCumAscjCumGj (Nw) : District ... vs M/S Sheel Credit Co on 24 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL
JSCCcumASCJcumGJ (NW) : DISTRICT COURTS : ROHINI :
DELHI
Unique ID No. : 02404C0010502011
Suit No. : 9/2011
1 Sh. Raj Kumar Arora
S/o Late Sh. M.L. Arora,
2 Smt. Sunita Arora W/o Sh. Raj Arora
Both R/o : A1, 681682, Sector6,
Delhi85. ...........Plaintiffs
Versus
M/s Sheel Credit Co.
Through its Director,
71, Behra Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi ...........Defendant
O R D E R
24.05.2012 1 Vide this order, I proceed to decide the following preliminary issue framed on 29.02.2012 :
'Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?' Suit No. 9/11 Raj Kumar Arora vs. M/s Sheel Credit Co Page 1 of 4
2 Brief facts, as per the case of the plaintiff, are that the defendant company asked the plaintiff to give signed blank cheques, loan agreements file, some pronotes and some blank signed documents towards securities on the pretext of formalities for grant of loan. The plaintiff has paid all the loan installments towards discharge of liabilities. The plaintiff asked the defendant to return the documents and the blank signed cheques but they refused to hand over the same. The plaintiff has great apprehension that the blank cheques and other documents may be misused by the defendant. Hence, this suit. 3 In the WS, the defendant has controverted the contents of the plaint.
4 In the replication, the plaintiff has denied the contents of the WS and reiterated the contents of the plaint. 5 Vide order dated 29.02.2012, the application U/o XXXIX R 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the above mentioned preliminary issue was framed.
Suit No. 9/11 Raj Kumar Arora vs. M/s Sheel Credit Co Page 2 of 4 6 I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
7 If the plaint of the present case is perused, it becomes quite clear that there is apparent lack of cause of action in favour of the plaintiff for filing of the present suit. The present suit has been filed under alleged strong apprehension without any specific cause of action. The plaint does not talk about reasons behind the alleged strong apprehension. In absence of a valid cause of action in favour of the plaintiff, the plaint itself is hit by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
8 Further even if, the contents of the plaint are taken to be correct, the relief claimed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act as if the cheques or documents allegedly given by the plaintiff to the defendant are misused or relied upon in any subsequent legal proceedings, then the plaintiff will be having opportunity to rebut the contentions of the opposite party by way of his defence which means that the plaintiff will be having equitable efficacious remedy by way of his defence.
Suit No. 9/11 Raj Kumar Arora vs. M/s Sheel Credit Co Page 3 of 4 9 Similarly, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to stop the defendant from initiating the criminal prosecution against him by way of the proceedings U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if any and such a relief is barred U/s 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act. 10 In view of the above discussions, it is clear that the present suit is barred under different provisions of law and the same is not maintainable in its present form. Hence, the preliminary issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. The suit is accordingly dismissed. The file be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court Today on 24.05.2012 (SANJAY JINDAL) JSCC/ASCJ (NW)/Rohini Courts Delhi Suit No. 9/11 Raj Kumar Arora vs. M/s Sheel Credit Co Page 4 of 4