Shri Man Singh & Another vs Jai Krishan Finlease Pvt Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 829 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment: 10.02.2011

+     RSA No.214/2010 & CM No. 20910/2010 (for stay) &
      Caveat No. 304/2010

SHRI MAN SINGH & ANOTHER                        ...........Appellants
                  Through:           Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate.

                   Versus

JAI KRISHAN FINLEASE PVT LTD.                   ..........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

13.08.2010 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge

dated 24.02.2010 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Jai Krishan

Finlease Pvt. Ltd. against the two defendants had been decreed in

its favour. It was a suit for recovery. It was initially filed under

Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred

to as 'Code') for recovery of `96,000/-. The application for leave to

defend had been allowed. The suit was tried as a regular suit. The

following four issues had been framed:-

1. Whether the defendant did not issue a cheque of `96,000/- to the plaintiff? OPD

2. Whether the defendant did not take any loan of `60,000/- from the plaintiff? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount with interest? If so at what rate? OPP.

4. Relief.

2 Oral and documentary evidence had been led which includes

the oral testimony of PW-1. In defence, the defendant had

examined himself as DW-1. The plaintiff had, on oath, reiterated

the averments made in the plaint; he had deposed that he had

given a loan of `60,000/- to defendant No. 1 on 05.10.2002;

defendant No. 2 who was the wife of defendant No. 1 had stood as

guarantor. Defendant No. 1 had issued a postdated cheque bearing

No.637605 dated 05.04.2005 for `96,000/- in favour of the plaintiff

company; cheque was dishonoured as the account stood closed.

The present suit was accordingly filed.

3 In the written statement, it had been contended that the

documents filed by the plaintiff did not bears the signatures of

defendant No. 1; he had not taken any loan from the plaintiff; he

had given the details of earlier transactions which had taken place

between the parties; his submission was that promissory note

purported to had been executed by the defendants (Ex. PW-1/4)

and the cheque (Ex. PW-1/5) did not bears signatures of defendant

No. 1; contention was that the promissory note and cheque are in

different ink. These contentions have been dealt with by the two

fact finding courts. The evidence had been scrutinized in detail

both oral and documentary as well as the submissions propounded

by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that this cheque

related to an earlier transaction. The testimony of the witness had

been adverted to draw a conclusion that the promissory note and

the cheque did in fact bear the signatures of the

defendants/appellants. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed in

the sum of `96,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

4 This finding was endorsed by the first appellate Court.

5 This Court is not a third fact finding Court. The jurisdiction of

this Court is bounded within the parameters of Section 100 of the

Code. Substantial questions of law have been phrased at page 13 in

the body of the appeal. They read as under:-

1. Whether the claim of the respondent was not maintainable or not?

2. Whether the alleged documents submitted by the plaintiff/ respondent are genuine or not?

3. Whether in the absence of expert opinion the alleged documents, the findings are legal or not?

4. Whether the respondent was authorized to file the suit or not?

5. Whether the leave to defend granted to the appellant is rightly held or not?

6. Whether the submissions/defence witnesses of the appellants as well as testimony of the respondent was rightly observed and appreciated by the ld. Courts or not?

6 These are all facts based. This court is not a third fact finding

Court. No substantial question of law has arisen.

Appeal as also pending applications are dismissed in limiine.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

FEBRUARY 10, 2011 A