Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(e) It was averred that blank cheques and documents were signed by the Appellant under threat of life by the Respondent, for which complaints were made in the concerned Police St ation. Appellant also lost blank cheques for which an online police complaint was registered on which no action was taken and Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001110 therefore the Bank was instructed to stop payment. Appellant also asserted that he did not know the Respondent and had never met her prior to the filing of t h e su it an d t herefore, t he Agreements relied upon by the Respondent as well as the cheques allegedly issued by the Appellant was forged and fabricated. Appellant submitted that he had a good case on merits and since triable issues were raised, unconditional leave to defend be granted by the Trial Court.

24. It is pertinent to mention that as per the agreement dated 21.04.2014, the total liability of the defendant comes out to Rs. 39,92,900/- till February, 2106. The liability till 19th of December, 2015 as per cheque No. 806343 and 806342 would come out to be Rs. 39,02,900.00/-.

25. That defendant in his application for leave to defend ant has only stated that the documents as prepared are forged and fabricated and same has been extorted from him. In the entire leave to defend the defendant has failed to explain as how the document s are forged and fabricated whereas in other part of his application for leave to defendant the defendant took the stand that the blank cheques for lost and it has also been stated by the defendant that the signature were taken on blank papers and cheques were lost in course of business. In this respect the defendant made reference to online complaint dated 20.05.2014 and 01.01.2015 wherein it has been stated that certain cheques were lost whereas in his writing dated 30.03.2015, as annexed with the complaint dated 22.04.2015 the defendant stated that blank cheques were taken from his office forcefully. It is pertinent to note that number of complaints which are annexed with the application for leave to defend were sent by the brother of defendant and not by defendant himself.

27. The loan agreement in between the plaintiff and defendant would show that there was monetary transaction in between plaintiff and defendant in which money was advanced by plaintiff to the Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001110 defendant. The defendant issued number of cheques to the plaintiff which as per the plaintiff are for the discharge of his liabilities whereas defendant raises a defence that blank cheques containing his signatures were lost and intimation in this respect has been given to the police and even bank has been informed. The defence as raised by the defendant however does not inspire much confidence as except for making the complaint no action has been taking by the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant alleges that he made first filed police complaint on 20.5.2014 that he has lost cheque and again on 01.01.2015 stating that that blank cheques containing the signature were lost and both the story of loss cheques were of similar nature whereas in other complaint dated 22.04.2015 written by his brother Rakesh Maggon, it was stated blank cheques were with plaintiff and was taken in forceful manner giving complete go by to the story of loss cheques as propounded in the application· for leave to defend and in some other complaints. The possibility of defendant filing the complaints cannot be ruled out or the possibility that plaintiff taking number of cheques towards the repayment of loan· cannot be ruled out. However, the nature of relationship does establish that there was monetary transaction in between plaintiff and defendant and defendant has mentioned silence in respect of loan agreement which was signed between plaintiff and defendant.

(d) Trial Court overlooked that several police complaints and reminders were made with the concerned Police Station for lost cheques as well as against the Respondents for having the documents and cheques signed at gun point in the year 2012 i.e. even before the alleged transactions.

(e) Appellant does not have the financial capacity to deposit the amounts directed by the Trial Court as a condition for leave to defend and therefore the grant of leave to defend was merely illusory. By review applications Appellant h ad brought t o t he notice of the Trial Court that he shall not be in a position to comply with the onerous conditions an d t his wou ld virt ually amount to denial of leave to defend, to which the Appellant h as been otherwise held entitled to.