Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sh. Sagir Ahmad vs Sh. Niraj Kumar Diwedi on 1 March, 2016

 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH, JUDGE, SMALL
  CAUSE COURT-CUM-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
    (NEW DELHI DISTRICT), PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
                         NEW DELHI
C.S. No. 239/14 (Old No. 19/14)


      Sh. Sagir Ahmad,
      S/o Sh. Sabir Ahmad,
      R/o RZ-51/1 (340), Gali No. 2,
      Main Sagarpur,
      New Delhi - 110 047.                 ..... Plaintiff

                                  VERSUS


      Sh. Niraj Kumar Diwedi,
      S/o Sh. Hira Lal Diwedi,
      R/o Shop No. A-321, Subzi Mandi,
      Azadpur, Delhi.
      Also at : Tiwaripur Kalan, P.O. Bhojpur,
               Distt. Raiberaily.
      Also at : H. No. 145, Pipalthala,
               Near New Subzi Mandi,
              Azadpur, Delhi - 110 033.        ..... Defendant


Date of Institution                   :           28/02/2014
Date of reserving of Order            :           01/03/2016
Date of Order                         :           01/03/2016
      SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.47,000 ALONG WITH
           PENDENTE LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST


C.S. No. 239/14 (Old no. 19/14)                    Page 1 of 6
 ORDER :

Present:     Ld. counsels for the parties.

1.           Arguments      heard    on   the   application   of   the
defendant, seeking leave to defend.

2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant sought financial help from the plaintiff, in the year 2012, around the time of his (defendant's) marriage. 2.1 Sh. Rama Kant Diwedi, brother-in-law of defendant is working with the plaintiff. Sh. Rama Kant introduced the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant also worked with the plaintiff as a labour for the wages @ Rs.250/- per day. The plaintiff upon the assurance of Sh. Rama Kant and the defendant, gave Rs.47,000/- to the defendant, over a period of time. In this regard a written Agreement / Settlement dated 01/03/2012 was also executed between the parties. As per the terms of the Agreement / Settlement, the defendant was required to pay Rs.1,000/- per month by the tenth day of each month w.e.f., April 2012. However, the defendant failed to make the payment as per the schedule. Despite repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendant did not make the payment. Legal Demand Notice dated 24/01/2014 was also sent to the defendant. However, despite service of the Notice, the defendant did not make the payment. The plaintiff also filed a police complaint with the local police station PS Sagarpur, New Delhi as well as other police authorities in Delhi and U.P. C.S. No. 239/14 (Old no. 19/14) Page 2 of 6

3. Application along with affidavit, seeking leave to defend filed by the defendant. It is stated that the defendant was working with the plaintiff at a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/-. Relations between the parties were good. As such, the defendant was residing in the house of the plaintiff. Out of the total salary of Rs.7,500/- per month, the plaintiff used to give Rs. 1,500/- cash to the defendant. The remaining balance of Rs. 6,000/- per month was retained by the plaintiff. At present, Rs. 54,000/- is the total deposit of the defendant with the plaintiff (for the period 2nd February, 2011 till the First Week of November, 2011). When the defendant demanded back the money around the time by his marriage, the plaintiff assured to return the same.

3.1 On 17/11/2011, the defendant got married to Ms. Ganga Dulari @ Seema Soni. The prospective bride brought along with her, gold jewellery four tolas (sic) and cash Rs. 18,000/- and came to Delhi on 09/11/2011. The gold and the cash were taken by the plaintiff upon the pretext of keeping them in safe custody.

3.2 The plaintiff and the defendant's brother-in-law hatched a conspiracy and upon the pretext of getting registered the plaintiff's marriage, fraudulently obtained the plaintiff's signature upon the Agreement-cum-Settlement dated 01/03/2012. Further, the defendant has denied the case of the plaintiff.

4. Arguments heard.

4.1 Ld. counsels for both the parties repeated the facts contained in their pleadings. It was submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant worked with him only for seven days. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant was facing criminal prosecution in relation to his marriage. In this regard he filed a Complaint before the Ld. MM. Therein, he filed a copy of his identity card. Photocopy of the certified copy obtained from the said complaint was filed. The same was admitted on behalf of the defendant. In this identity card the defendant is shown as a worker / employee of PACL Ltd. The date of issue is 05/11/2011. It was submitted that the defendant was working as a Broker with PACL Ltd. As such, he had no occasion to work for long with the plaintiff and his wages be retained by the plaintiff.

5. In the present case, the defendant has admitted that he signed the Agreement / Settlement dated 01/03/2012. He has further stated that he was fraudulently made to sign the said agreement. The contents of the agreement were not explained to him. I have perused the said agreement. Therein, it is stated that the plaintiff bore the expenses of the legal proceedings faced by the defendant with regard to his marriage to Ms. Ganga Dulari @ Seema Soni. This Agreement -cum-Settlement is attested by a Notary. The claim of the defendant regarding deception for signing the said agreement is merely a bald claim. The photographs of the defendant and the plaintiff are also C.S. No. 239/14 (Old no. 19/14) Page 4 of 6 pasted on the said agreement. An application was filed by the defendant before the Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, for recording Statement of his wife under Section 164 Cr.PC. Photocopy of the said application along with the documents is placed on record in the present case. In the said application at Para No. 5, it is stated that the applicant no. 1 (i.e, the defendant herein) is working at Azadpur Mandi, Delhi for the last 6-7 years. The photocopy of the identity card of the defendant is also filed, wherein, it is shown that he is working for PACL Ltd. This application was filed in the year 2012 (as mentioned on the First Page of the Application). On the one hand, the defendant in his application, seeking leave to defend, is claiming that he worked with the plaintiff from 2nd February to First Week of November, 2011. On the other hand, in January 2012, he is claiming that for the past 6-7 years he is working at Azadpur Mandi, Delhi. It shows that the defendant is taking contradictory stands. In view of the above, the claim raised by the defendant regarding wages retained by the plaintiff is falsified. 5.1 In view of the above, it is clear that the defence raised by the defendant is mere moon shine. No triable issue is raised by the defendant. He has admitted that he has signed the Agreement-cum-Settlement dated 01/03/2012. As already observed, the defence regarding the defendant being deceived into signing the said agreement is not tenable. The application, seeking leave to defend is dismissed.

6. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the sum of Rs. 47,000/-. In the Agreement dated 01/03/2012, there is no specific mention about the rate of interest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 12% per annum is granted on the decreetal amount of Rs.47,000/- from the date of Agreement i.e., 01/03/2012 till the date of decree i.e., today 01/03/2016. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.

Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.

Pronounced in the open                 (RAJINDER SINGH)
court on 01/03/2016               Judge, Small Cause Court /
                                  Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Patiala
                                   House Courts, New Delhi




C.S. No. 239/14 (Old no. 19/14)                  Page 6 of 6
 C.S. No. 239/14 (Old no. 19/14)   Page 7 of 6