Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17.05.2025

1. Suit Dismissed.

2. The plaintiff case is seen to be rather fantastical and not rooted in reasonable reality. His cross examination brought home that point only, laying open his case unsure and uncertain, in view of which he is held disentitled to the relief sought.

Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.1 of 12

3. Pithily put, the case of the plaintiff is that he and the defendant both, were friends being taxi drivers and having cordial relations. It is averred that in the month of June 2018, defendant approached the plaintiff and demanded Rs.2,60,000/- from him for purchasing a Bus with an undertaking to return the money within a year. However, the plaintiff was unable to pay such a big amount in one go but in good faith, made payment of Rs.2,59,900/- to the defendant from 08.06.2018 to 19.09.2018 from his bank i.e. Bank of Baroda, Branch Mayur Vihar, Delhi at short intervals, as mentioned in plaint. It is further claimed that in the month of June- July 2018, the defendant purchased one Ashok Leyland Bus bearing no. UP 17T 9009 by financing the same from Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. However, in the month of November 2018 the abovesaid bus was stolen and under false suspicion the defendant made a complaint against plaintiff. In April, plaintiff asked the defendant to return the said amount of Rs. 2,59,900/- and defendant assured him of payment in August, 2019. On 06.08.2019, the plaintiff approached the defendant when he issued a cheque bearing no. 000024 dt. 06.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- drawn on Bank of India towards discharging his part liability. The said cheque was however dishonored vide returned memo dt. 08.08.2019 with remarks 'kindly contact drawer' and upon inquiry from Bank, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had issued an old/outdated cheque. Plaintiff attempted on several occasions to meet defendant for return of his loan but to no avail. Plaintiff served a legal notice dt. 27.08.2019 upon the Civ Suit No. 1017/2019 Santosh Kumar vs. Hosilal Prasad pg no.2 of 12 defendant through Speed Post which was duly replied vide reply dt. 04.09.2019 and in reply of the same, plaintiff filed back another reply dt. 28.09.2019 which was also served upon the defendant vide speed post dt. 01.10.2019. Payment however having not been made ultimately, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2,59,900/- came to be filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.