Delhi District Court
Ajit Bali vs ) Smt. Meena Anand on 21 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GARG,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS. No.: 374/20
CNR No. DLND010051112020
In the matter of
Ajit Bali
S/o Late Shri R.C. Bali
R/o G1201, Pearl Court, Ramprastha Green,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P.
.......Plaintiff
Versus
1) Smt. Meena Anand,
widow of Late Shri Hari Om Anand
2) Manshi Anand,
daughter of Late Shri Hari Om Anand
3) Gautam Anand,
son of Late Shri Hari Om Anand,
All having office/resident at
Anand Medical Store, A1,
Damodar Colony, Garh Road,
Meerut250004, Uttar Pradesh
And also at:
House No. H256, Shastri Nagar,
Meerut250004, Uttar Pradesh.
CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 1 of 19
4) Nidhi Bhasin,
daughter of Late Shri Hari Om Anand,
E139, First Floor, Greater KailashI,
New Delhi110048.
.......Defendants
21.12.2021
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.27,56,000/ with interest under Order XXXVII of CPC filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The plaintiff knew Late Sh. Hari Om Anand and the defendants for last many years. Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, the husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendants no.2 to 4 was carrying on various business and was also the sole proprietor of Anand Medical Store at Meerut. He was also associated with Anand Hospital at Meerut.
It is the case of the plaintiff that Late Sh. Hari Om Anand being proprietor of Anand Medical Store approached the plaintiff seeking loan for business purpose. The plaintiff agreed to advance the amount as sought by Late Sh. Hari Om Anand. He personally assured the plaintiff that the amount advanced by the plaintiff would be repaid in full by him as and when demanded. He also gave assurance that he will pay interest @ 1.575% per month to the plaintiff on the amount CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 2 of 19 being loaned to him. On his personal request and assurance, the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.20 lacs through RTGS on 25.01.2017, 27.01.2017, 08.02.2017 and 14.06.2017 amounting to Rs.5 lacs each from his Bank Account which is being maintained in UCO Bank, Supreme Court, New Delhi01. Late Sh. Hari Om Anand was paying the interest amount to the plaintiff by transferring from his account/account of Anand Medical Store every month till September, 2018 @ Rs.31,500/ per month. The plaintiff was in urgent need of money and therefore, he requested Late Sh. Hari Om Anand to return the loan amount of Rs.20 lacs and Late Sh. Hari Om Anand personally assured the plaintiff that he will pay the amount in the last week of March, 2019 and till March, 2019 he will continue to pay the interest. Accordingly, Late Sh. Hari Om Anand issued cheques bearing No. 001509 dated 25.03.2019 of Rs.10 lacs; cheque no.001570 dated 25.03.2019 of Rs.5 lacs and cheque no.001736 dated 25.03.2019 of Rs.5 lacs, all drawn on HDFC Bank, Limited, Suryansh Plaza, 171/1, Taru Kunj, Garh Road, Meerut, U.P in favour of plaintiff towards discharge of his liability. While handing over the said cheques, Late Sh. Hari Om Anand assured the plaintiff that the same will be encashed and honoured in full. Believing his assurance, the plaintiff accepted the said cheques and accordingly presented the same for encashment on 29.03.2019 in his savings account No. 02070100009230 maintained in abovesaid UCO Bank, but the said cheques were dishonoured and returned on 30th March, 2019 for the CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 3 of 19 reason "Funds Insufficient". The plaintiff informed about the same to Late Sh. Hari Om Anand and Late Sh. Hari Om Anand told the plaintiff to represent the cheques in the middle of June, 2019 and assured that the cheques would be honoured on presentation. Accordingly, the plaintiff represented the said cheques in his bank on 20.06.2019 maintained by the said UCO Bank, but the said cheques were again dishonoured and returned back on 21.06.2019 for the reason "Funds Insufficient". When the said cheques were not honoured, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 23.07.2019 to Late Sh. Hari Om Anand asking him to make the payment of aforesaid cheques amount i.e. Rs.20 lacs with interest @ 1.575% per month which came to Rs.1,26,000/ from 25.03.2019 till 23.07.2019. However, no payment was made by Late Sh. Hari Om Anand. Thereafter, plaintiff came to know that Sh. Hari Om Anand passed away in the month of June, 2020. On 03.09.2020, a legal notice was issued to the defendants being legal representatives of Late Sh. Hari Om Anand demanding a sum of Rs.27,56,000/ which was inclusive of abovesaid cheques amount. The defendants were duly served but no payment was made by them till date. When the defendants did not pay the outstanding amount, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit under Order XXXVII of CPC.
3. Summons for appearance was issued to the defendants and the defendants filed their appearance on 23.03.2021. Thereafter, CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 4 of 19 pursuant to the issuance of summons for judgment, the defendants have sought leave to defend the suit on the following grounds:
(i) This court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
(ii)The defendants have not issued the abovesaid cheques amounting to Rs.20 lacs drawn on HDFC Bank to the plaintiff and rather, it was issued by Sh. Hari Om Anand who expired on 27.06.2020. The defendant no.1 is wife of deceased Sh. Hari Om Anand and the defendants no.2 & 4 are daughters and defendant no.3 is son of deceased Sh. Hari Om Anand.
(iii) There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants no. 1 to 4 as they are merely legal heirs of deceased Harim Om Anand to whom plaintiff allegedly advanced loan.
(iv) Since there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendants (LR's of deceased Hari Om Anand), they are not personally liable to pay the loan amount as they have not inherited any thing from the deceased Hari Om Anand.
(v) The suit is barred under the provisions of Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 and U.P. Registration of Money Lending Act, 1976.
4. In support of these issues, ld. Counsel for defendants/ applicants submits that since the address of plaintiff and the defendants are outside the jurisdiction of this court, the deceased Hari CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 5 of 19 Om Anand was residing and working for gain at Meerut, U.P and as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court, this court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try this suit. He further submits that mere presentation of cheque in an account maintained at Delhi does not confer jurisdiction in Delhi Courts. In support, he relied upon case titled as "Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors." IA 8979/2006 in CS(OS) 1643/2005 decided on 24.10.2007 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein it is held that:
15. Section 64(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, insofar as it relates to cheques, stipulates that the cheques must be presented for payment to the drawee by or on behalf of the holder and that in default of such presentment, the other parties thereto are not liable thereon to such holder. This provision specially indicates that unless there is proper presentment of the cheque, the drawer cannot be held liable in respect of the same.
Proper presentment of the cheque requires that the same must be presented for payment to the drawee. In this case the drawee is the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Ootacamund. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the presentment for payment of the amount represented by the cheque had to be made to the drawee, i.e., the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Ootacamund. The deposit of the cheque by the plaintiffs at their bankers (ICICI Bank, New Delhi) for collection is of no consequence. What is of importance is only the fact of presentment for payment and that has to be to the drawee which is the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Ootacamund".
5. Further, ld. Counsel for defendants/applicants submitted that vide MOU dated 01.02.2020 executed between plaintiff and Late CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 6 of 19 Hari Om Anand confers exclusive jurisdiction to competent court at Meerut to try and entertain any suit. In support of his contention, he relied upon case titled as "A.B.C Laminart Pvt. Ltd, & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem", 1989 AIR 1239 wherein it is held that:
"21. From the foregoing decisions it can be reasonably deduced that where such an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction of other courts. When the clause is clear, unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction, As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like 'alone', 'only, 'exclusive' and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' expression of one is the exclusion of another may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed".
6. Similar reliance is placed on case titled as "M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd" Civil Appeal No.5086 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5595 of 2012). He further submits that on this ground, they have also filed an application u/o VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint.
7. It is further argued that since the plaintiff himself claimed CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 7 of 19 that he has advanced interest bearing loan to deceased Hari Om Anand, though he does not have any money lending license under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 and U.P. Registration of Money Lending Act, 1976, thus the suit is not maintainable. He further submits that even otherwise, since there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendants, cheques in question are allegedly issued by deceased Hari Om Anand and since the defendants have not derived any estate from the deceased, they are not personally liable to pay the alleged debt of deceased Hari Om Anand. Thus, these issues are triable in nature for which unconditional leave to defend may kindly be granted to the defendants.
8. Lastly, leave to defend has been sought on the basis of Will of deceased Hari Om Anand whereby except Smt. Meena Anand, all the other defendants have been excluded from inheritance. Thus, since the remaining defendants have not inherited anything out of the estate of deceased, they are not personally liable for his debts.
9. Per contra, on the aspect of jurisdiction, ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that apart from presentation of cheques, since loan was advanced to deceased Hari Om Anand by plaintiff from his account being maintained at UCO Bank Branch, Supreme Court of India, interest was paid by the deceased at this account and the cheques issued by the deceased Hari Om Anand got dishonoured at this branch, which falls under the jurisdiction of this court, hence, this CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 8 of 19 court has the territorial jurisdiction to try this case. He further submits that under the context of Order 37 of CPC, the principle of debtor must seek the creditor, is to be invoked as the bank of the plaintiff is situated in Delhi. In support of his contention, he relied upon case titled as "Shanti Devi alias Shanti Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors." [(2020) 10 SCC 766], wherein the court considered the meaning of 'cause of action' to hold that even if a small fraction of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, the court would have jurisdiction. He also placed reliance on case titled as "Maya Jain Vs. Yash Chhabra", C.S. (OS) No.2254/2013 decided on 27th April 2015 reiterated the principle of "Debtor must seek out the creditor". Further the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held in Auto Movers Vs. Luminos Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., C.M. (M) No. 604/2020 decided on 16th September 2021, that arguendo even without following the principle of "Debtor must seek out the creditor", if the part cause of action arises on account of the payments made by the petitioner/defendant directly into the bank account of the respondent/plaintiff, the Hon'ble Court would have the jurisdiction.
Further in Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra (2015) 2 Mah. L.J. 78, the issue that came for consideration before the Bombay High Court was as to whether the Courts at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of the cheque which had been issued by the accusedpetitioner CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 9 of 19 who had his Bank in Gandhinagar Branch, Ahmedabad. The Court noted the cheque was payable at par at all branches of the respective banks. The court in paragraph 8 held that the drawer of the cheque had given option to the banker of the payee bank to get the cheque cleared from the nearest available branch of the bank of the drawer, hence,the court at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain the present case. The judgment of the Mumbai was upheld as S.L.P. filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was withdrawn.
In Puneet Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Imaginations lAgri Exports & Ors. 2013 SCC Online Delhi 701, the High Court held that the branch of the bank of the plaintiff is of relevance for determining territorial jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Court held that in today's day and time of electronic banking it is possible to operate an account from any branch whatsoever.
Thus, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
10. In respect of MOU, he submits that since terms and conditions of the MOU was not complied with and same was cancelled by the defendant Mr. Gautam Anand himself, it has no bearing on the aspect of jurisdiction in this case. Even otherwise, it was executed after the dishonour of the cheques and does not take note of the cheques in question. However, inference regarding admitted liability of the deceased Hari Om Anand can be gathered from the said CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 10 of 19 MOU which is duly witnessed by defendants herein.
11. On the aspect of Will dated 01.06.2020, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for plaintiff that rather the defendants are guilty of committing perjury by filing false affidavit stating that they have not inherited the estate of Late Hari Om Anand as no Will was executed by him. Wherein as per the Will, the estate of the deceased Hari Om Anand has been delved upon defendant Meena Anand. He further submits that as far as contention of privity of contract between the parties and the extent to which defendants are liable is concerned, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in similar situation in case titled as "Sanjeev Jain Vs. Rajni Dhingra & Ors. CS(OS) 378/2018 & I.. 16982/2018, categorically held that summary suit u/o 37 CPC is maintainable against the LR's of deceased borrower since right to sue survives, however, to which extent it can be executed, can be seen only at the stage of execution of decree.
12. He further submits that as far as Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 and U.P. Registration of Money Lending Act, 1976 is concerned, the same is not applicable in this case, since the plaintiff is not a professional money lender and advanced loan to deceased Hari Om Anand being known to him since long. He further submits that merely because it was an interest bearing loan does not mean that the plaintiff is in the profession of advancing loan. More so, the grant of friendly loan with interest does not fall within the CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 11 of 19 jurisdiction of Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 and U.P. Registration of Money Lending Act, 1976.
13. Submissions advanced on behalf of both sides heard. Judgment relied upon by both sides considered.
14. Vide deciding the application for grant of leave to defend, the following principles are to be observed as held in Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. V. Chamanlal Bros. AIR 1965 SC 1698 in para no.18:
(a) If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit;
(b). If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend;
(c) even if the defendant raises triable issues, if a doubt is left with the trial judge about the Defendant's good faith, or the genuineness of the triable issues, the trial judge may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court or furnishing security. Care must be taken to see that the object of the provisions to assist expeditious disposal of commercial causes is not defeated.
Care must also be taken to see that such triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe orders as to deposit or security;
(d) if the defendant raises a defence which is plausible but improbable, the trial judge may impose conditions as to CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 12 of 19 time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court, or furnishing security. As such a defence does not raise triable issues, conditions as to deposit or security or both can extend to the entire principal sum together with such interest as the court feels the justice of the case requires.
(e) if the defendant has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues, and the court finds such defence to be frivolous or vexatious, then leave to defend the suit shall be refused, and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith;
(f) if any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the Defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit, (even if triable issues or a substantial defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in court.
15. Again in case titled as "Mrs. Raj Duggal Vs. Rames Kumar Bansal MANU/SC/0393/1990" : AIR 1990 SC 2218, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the following principle while granting or refusing leave to defend a suit under Order 37 CPC: "Leave is declined where the Court is of the opinion that the grant of leave would merely enable the defendant to prolong the litigation by raising untenable and frivolous defenses. The test is to see whether the defense raises a real issue and not a sham one, in the sense that if the facts alleged by the defendant are established there would be a good or even a plausible defense on those facts. If the Court is satisfied about that leave must be given. If there is a triable issue in the sense that there is a fair dispute to be tried as to the meaning of a document on which the claim is based or uncertainty as to the amount actually due or where the alleged facts are of such a nature as to entitle the defendant to interrogate the plaintiff or to cross examine his witnesses leave should not be denied. Where also, CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 13 of 19 the defendant shows that even on a fair probability he has a bonafide defense, he ought to have leave. Summary judgments under Order 37 CPC should not be granted where serious conflict as to matter of fact or where any difficulty on issues as to law arises. The Court should not reject the defense of the defendant merely because of its inherent implausibility or its inconsistency."
16. At this stage, it is observed that apart from the application for leave to defend, the defendants have also filed an application u/o VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground of jurisdiction and another application u/o I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for deletion of defendants no.2, 3 & 4 on the basis of Will dated 01.06.2020. Since these contentions are also raised in the application at hand, all the applications are taken up together for adjudication.
17. Coming to the facts of the present case, the defendants sought leave to defend the suit on the ground that the alleged loan, if any was taken by Late Sh. Hari Om Anand in the capacity of proprietor of Anand Medical Store, cheques in question and repayment of the alleged loan have also been issued by Late Sh. Hari Om Anand, therefore, the defendants merely because the legal heirs of deceased Hari Om Anand are not liable to pay the alleged loan advanced to deceased by the plaintiff herein as there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendants herein. Even otherwise they have not inherited anything from deceased Hari Om Anand and thus, they cannot be held personally liable to the debts owned by deceased Hari CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 14 of 19 Om Anand. Even otherwise as per Will dated 01.06.2020, apart from Meena Anand, all other defendants have been excluded from inheritance by deceased Hari Om Anand as such no liability can be fastened upon remaining defendants.
18. Admittedly, the loan was advanced and the cheques in question were issued by deceased Hari Om Anand being proprietor of Anand Medical Store in favour of the plaintiff. Proprietorship and its proprietor is a single legal entity and all the rights and duties of the proprietorship are is of its proprietor only. Meaning thereby, the legal heirs of the deceased cannot be held personally liable in respect of the loan advanced to deceased Hari Om Anand except to the extent of the estate of the deceased delved upon them. However, whether in fact any estate has been inherited by defendants from deceased Hari Om Anand or not is to be seen only at the time of execution of the decree, if any passed against the defendants herein.
19. In all most identical situation, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Sanjeev Jain Vs. Rajni Dhingra & Ors." CS(OS) 378/2018 & I.. 16982/2018, while dealing with the same issue categorically held that the summary suit u/o 37 of CPC is maintainable against the legal heirs of the deceased borrower.
In support, the Hon'ble High Court referred the Division Bench Judgment in case titled as "Bank of India Vs. Industrial CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 15 of 19 Polymer", (1991) 93 BOMLR 218 wherein it is so held:
7. Order XXXVII does not exclude from its purview a suit where the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased are party defendants.
Nor is there any protection under the Civil Procedure Code to the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased defendant from a decree being passed against them, provided of course, that the right to sue them survives. The protection which Section 52 of the Civil Procedure Code gives to the heirs and legal representatives of a defendant is a protection against the enforcement of a decree against them in execution. Under Section 52, where a decree is passed against a party as the legal representative of a deceased person and the decree is for the payment of money out of the property of the deceased, it may be executed by the attachment and sale of such property. The decree can be executed to the extent of the property of the deceased in his hands. This is a protection which is granted at the stage of execution. Hence even in a case where a decree is passed against such an heir or legal representative under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, the decree can be executed only to the extent of the estate of the deceased coming to his hands. The apprehension of the learned judge in the case of Rajesh Steel Centre (Supra) is, therefore unfounded.
8. In the case of Lallu Bhagvan Vs. Tribjuvan Motiram (1889) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 633 (D.B.), a Division Bench of this court held that the decree against the legal representatives of a deceased debtor can be passed even if they have not inherited any property. If they have not inherited any property, the only result is that the decree can not be executed against them. This is a matter to be decided at the stage of execution. It does not affect the right of a court to pass a decree. This decision has been followed in the case of Ranjitsingh V. Narmadi (1931) A.I.R. Nagpur 173 where it is held that where an heir of a debtor is sued it is not open to him to raise the plea in course of the suit that he does not hold the assets of the deceased debtor.
The plea is confined to execution only.
20. Taking cue from the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above mentioned case, this contention of the defendants is rejected. Further the defendants have contended that vide Will dated CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 16 of 19 01.06.2020, only Meena Anand i.e. defendant no.1 inherits the estate of deceased and thus remaining defendants cannot be held liable for the loan advanced to their deceased father. This contention is also misplaced at this juncture as it is to be considered at the time of execution only.
21. Leave to defend has been further sought on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this court. However, as per plaintiff, the loan was in fact advanced to deceased Hari Om Anand by the plaintiff from the bank account of plaintiff maintained within the jurisdiction of this court and the cheques in question were presented and got dishonoured within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, since major cause of action arose between the parties within territorial jurisdiction of this court, this court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Reliance placed upon case titled as Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors (Supra), by the defendants is of no use since in the said case, only the cheque was presented and dishonoured within the jurisdiction of the concerned court wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that mere presentation and dishonoured does not confer jurisdiction. Further reliance placed upon A.B.C Laminart Pvt. Ltd, & Anr.(Supra) in respect of ouster clause specified in MOU is concerned, the said MOU was neither acted nor complied by any side and got cancelled by defendant Gautam Anand. Even otherwise, the ouster clause regarding jurisdiction of courts mentioned in the said CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 17 of 19 MOU has no bearing in the instant suit, since the cheques in question were issued, presented and dishonoured prior to execution of said MOU and further the MOU contemplates about partnership between the parties without having an iota of whisper about the cheques in question which already stood dishonoured by that time. Thus, the said MOU has no bearing on this case.
22. Lastly, leave to defend has been sought on the ground of bar of institution of the instant suit under Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 and U.P. Registration of Money Lending Act, 1976, the same are not applicable to the instant case, since stray incidence of advancing of friendly interest bearing loan does not attract the provisions of the said Acts.
23. In these circumstances, since all the grounds on which leave to defend have been sought, does not raise the triable issue entitling the defendants leave to defend the suit, their application to this effect stands dismissed. Consequently their application u/o VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC and the application u/o I Rule 10 (2) of CPC also stands dismissed.
Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3(6)(a) of CPC. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a liquidated sum of Rs.20,00,000/ (Rupees 20 Lakhs only) i.e. cheques amount in favour CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 18 of 19 of the plaintiff and against all the defendants jointly and severally with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the cheques till the date of decree. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court (AJAY GARG)
on 21.12.2021. Additional District Judge01
Patiala House Courts/New Delhi
CS No. 374/20 Ajit Bali Vs. Smt. Meena Anand & Ors. Page 19 of 19