Delhi District Court
Shri Jagat Singh vs Shri Jitender Kumar Kadwal on 6 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 206/12.
SHRI JAGAT SINGH
SON OF SHRI SURAT SINGH
R/O 294-C, CHIRAG DELHI
NEW DELHI-110017 ..........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SHRI JITENDER KUMAR KADWAL
@ JEET RAM SONI
SON OF SHRI SURAJ BHAN KADWAL
R/O 725, MAIN BAZAR CHIRAG DELHI
NEW DELHI-110017
2. SMT. RAJ BALA
WIFE OF SHRI JITENDER KUMAR KADWAL
R/O 725, MAIN BAZAR CHIRAG DELHI
NEW DELHI-110017 .........DEFENDANTS.
Date of Arguments: 18.07.2013
Date of Judgment : 06.08.2013
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, I shall dispose of suit, entitled as, Shri Jagat Singh Vs. Shri Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. bearing suit no. 206/12. The present suit has been filed for damages of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest. Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 1/11 -2- It has been prayed that a decree of damages for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-, with interest future and pendentelite in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants be passed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was doing his private business and maintaining his livelihood and his family members; that the defendant no.1 is a jeweler by profession and defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant; that the defendants resided near to the house of the petitioner; that the defendant no.1 is well known to the petitioner and he requested him to grant a loan of Rs.10,000/- , as he was in crises and the plaintiff agreed for the same and paid Rs.10,000/- through cash to him; that the plaintiff agreed to pay the said amount within a period of one year along with 2% interest per month; that after some time the business of the defendant no.1 came down as his source of income gradually got degraded; that the defendant no.1 further requested the petitioner for another loan for Rs.10,000/- for his business; that he also agreed that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- will be returned to the petitioner within a period of six months along with interest @ 2% per month; that both the amount were paid on 2nd October, 2005 and 24th Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 2/11 -3- April, 2005; that the defendant no.1 after getting the loan amount failed to honour the commitment made by him towards the petitioner; that the petitioner is under threat that the defendants will falsely implicate him in a criminal case. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the cause of action arose on 24.4.2005 and on 02.10.2005 when the petitioner provided the loan amount to the defendants; that the cause of action further arose on 22.5.2006 when the petitioner asked for the loan amount and he was arrested by the police; that the cause of action further arose when false complaint was lodged by the defendants and on 22.11.2006 when the petitioner was finally discharged by the concerned court.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. It is the case of the defendants that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the same has been filed without arising any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; that the suit is wrong and false, hence the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is denied by the defendants that the defendant no. 1 after getting the loan amount failed to honour the commitment made by him towards the petitioner or he neglected to make the payment of interest for the loan amount from the Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 3/11 -4- petitioner. It is further the case of the defendant that prayer clause of the suit of the plaintiff is wrong and false and denied. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In his rejoinder the plaintiff has denied the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff has reiterated the facts as mentioned in his suit. It has been stated that the prayer clause of the defendants as mentioned in the written statement is wrong and denied. It has been prayed that a decree of damages of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest future and pendentilite in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants be passed.
5. In the present case, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses in support of its case. They are PW1 Jagat Singh himself and PW2, Constable, Avdesh.
6. PW1 Jagat Singh had filed his affidavit-in-evidence which is Ext.PW1/1 and he had reiterated the facts as deposed in his suit. This witness was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was doing the private job, at the Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 4/11 -5- time of incident dated 22.05.2006 with Amind Associates, at 42 k.m. Delhi Jaipur Road, Village Kherki Daula Gurgaon, Haryana,. He further deposed that he had no identity card issued by that company. He further deposed that he had no salary slip of that company. He deposed that he knew the defendant 2 /3 years prior to the incident, since he had got some jewellery items prepared from him, as he was a jeweller from his village. He further deposed that he could not tell the date, month or the year, when the defendant abused and extended threat to him. He denied that he had filed the false suit to grab the money from the defendant.
7. PW-2, Constable Avdesh, has proved the certified copy Ext.PW2/1, issued by his office.
8. The defendant, Jitender Kumar Kadwal had examined himself as DW1. He deposed that had filed his affidavit-in-evidence which is Ext.DW1/1 and he had reiterated the facts as deposed in his written statement. This witness was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he knew the plaintiff, Jagat Singh for the last eight years. He further deposed that he Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 5/11 -6- did no have any relations with Jagat Singh for the last six years. He denied that on 22.5.2006, when the plaintiff was present in his house, the police took him on his instructions. This witness denied that he had filed false police complaint when the plaintiff demanded the said loan amount from him. It is denied by the defendant that he had filed the false affidavit.
9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by ld. Predecessor of this court for consideration.
(i) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no.2? OPD.
(ii) Whether the defendant with a common intention to escape from the liability filed the false complaint and implicated the petitioner in criminal cases in which the petitioner was discharged, if so, its effect? OPP
(iii) Whether there is no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
(iv) Relief.
10) It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 6/11 -7- plaintiff has proved its case. It has further been contended that the defendant no.1 had taken the loan from the plaintiff but the same was not returned back by him on one pretext or the other. It has further been contended that the plaintiff was falsely implicated by the defendants in the criminal cases and later on he was discharged by the court of ld. SEM.
It has further been contended that the present suit has been properly verified and the suit for recovery of the damages is maintainable against the defendants. It has been argued that there is clear evidence against the defendants to establish the present case by the plaintiff. It has further been argued that despite expiry of the period and continuous request of the plaintiff, the defendants failed to honour his commitment regarding the repayment of the loan amount. It has been argued that the defendants have failed to repay the loan amount of the plaintiff and instead of doing the same, they have misused the administration by filing a false criminal case against the plaintiff by registering the false FIR. It has been argued that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the cause of action still continues. It has further been argued that the plaintiff has become scapegoat in the hands of the Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 1/11 -8- defendants with the connivance of the police officials and he is still under threat by the defendants to falsely implicate him in false cases. It has been prayed that a decree of damages for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-with interest future and pendentelite, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants be passed.
11) On the other hand, it has been contended by ld. Counsel for the defendants that the present suit has been filed just to harass the defendants. It has further been contended that the plaintiff was arrested by the police when he was creating nuisance. It has further been contended that the present suit is not maintainable as the same has been filed without any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It has further been contended that the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands, hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed. It has been argued that the present suit is the counter blast of the criminal case i.e. DD No. 17 dated 22.05.2006 U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. PS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and the same has been filed against the defendants for grabbing more money by illegal means, otherwise, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 8/11 -9- defendants for filing the present suit. It has further been argued that the plaintiff has filed the alleged suit for the recovery of damages but neither there was any damage nor the plaintiff had mentioned, even a single word, as to what sort of, how and when and by whom the damage was caused against the plaintiff. It has been prayed that the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
12) I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record file carefully.
13) My findings on the issues are as under. The issues no.1 and 2 are taken up together.
14) Issues no.1 and 2 .
In the present matter, affiavit filed on behalf of PW1, Jagat Singh does not reiterate any material on the basis of which it can be said that defendant no.2 was in any way instrumental in registration of Kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the defendant. There is nothing in the evidence of PW1 that defendant no.2 had lodged any complaint with the police official of PS Malviya Nagar. Vide para 6 of the evidence of PW1, Jagat Singh, it has been deposed that "one Jitender Kadwal Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 9/11 -10- defendant no.1 had lodged a police complaint". Thus, there was nothing material against the defendant no.2 to join him as defendant. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of defendant no.2 and against the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of the defendant no.2 as party in the present matter.
15. There is nothing in the evidence of PW1, Jagat Singh to show that Kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was falsely got registered by defendant no.1, Jitender Kumar Kadwal. The plaintiff has failed to produce any material on the record file to show that the said Kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was falsely got registered on the behest of defendant no.
1. It is clear from the evidence of DW1, Jitender Kumar Kadwal that Kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered by the P.S. Malviya Nagar because he was creating nuisance. This fact is proved by ExtPW1/D-1. There is nothing on the record file to show that false complaint was lodged by the defendant no.1. Further, there is nothing on the record file to show that false complaint was lodged by defendant no.1. Further, there is nothing on the record file to show that the plaintiff was arrested on the false complaint lodged at the behest of the defendant no.1. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.
Suit No.206/12 Jagat Singh Vs.Jitender Kumar Kadwal etc. 10/11
-11-
16). Issues no.3 and 4.
In view of the findings on issue no.1 and 2 to the effect that no false complaint was lodged on behalf of defendant no.1, the plaintiff has no cause of action in his favour to file the present suit. There is nothing on the record file to show that the plaintiff is entitled for any relief, as prayed. The suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present suit is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly.
Let the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open (RAMESH KUMAR)
court today i.e. 06.08.2013 ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI