Shri Vinay Shraff vs Smt. Deepika Jain
2011 Latest Caselaw 2009 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Judgment: 06.04.2011


+            RSA No.61/2011 & CM Nos.7020-21/2011


SHRI VINAY SHRAFF
                                                      ...........Appellant
                       Through:   Ms. Pusshp Gupta, Advocate.

                       Versus

SMT. DEEPIKA JAIN
                                                    ..........Respondent
                       Through:   Nemo.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  Yes

    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                         Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated

17.02.2011 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge

dated 26.05.2009 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking

recovery of money against the defendant in the sum of Rs.30,496/-

had been decreed. The suit had been decreed for a sum of

Rs.12,476/- along with interest.

2 This is a second appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it has

been urged that Ex. PW-1/B upon which reliance has been placed

upon by the impugned judgment was a forged and fabricated

document and this was the clear defence of the

defendant/appellant all along; the impugned judgment having

relied upon this document without considering the contention of

the defendant amounts to a perversity. This vital document did not

find mention in the plaint and has been misconstrued.

3 The case of the plaintiff as is evident is that the parties i.e.

the plaintiff and the defendant were having business dealings. In

lieu of aforenoted business transactions, the defendant had issued

four cheques to the plaintiff amounting to Rs.19,803/-; on

presentation three of the aforenoted cheques were dishonoured.

Legal notice was served upon the defendant. Payment was not

made. Suit was accordingly filed.

4 The defence of the defendant was that they had no business

dealings; no amount was payable.

5 On the pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed. Oral

and documentary evidence was led. On the basis of oral and

documentary evidence which included the bills Ex. PW-1/A & Ex.

PW-1/B, the suit of the plaintiff had been decreed in the aforenoted

amount. Testimony of PW-1 has been adverted to. The aforenoted

documents had been proved through the testimony of PW-1. The

impugned judgment had correctly noted that no suggestion has

been given to PW-1 that Ex. PW-1/B was either a forged or a

fabricated document or that it has not signed by the employee of

the defendant at point 'X' or that in fact he had no such employee.

Testimony of PW-1 had been relied upon. Both the concurrent

findings had returned a positive conclusion that the goods had

been received by the defendant against the invoice Ex. PW-1/B.

There is no perversity in this finding.

6 Substantial questions of law have been embodied on page 4

of the body of the appeal. No such substantial question of law has

arisen. This court is not a third fact finding court. There is no

merit in this appeal. Appeal as also pending applications are

dismissed in limine.

(INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE APRIL 06, 2011 A