Manoj Kumar Sharma vs Sapna & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 6042 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of Decision : 08.10.2012

+       CS(OS) 575/2011

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA                                ..... Plaintiff

                           Through   Mr. D.S. Paveriya, Adv.

                  versus

SAPNA & ANR                                        ..... Defendants

                           Through   Mr. Deepanker Mohan, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                           JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Vide order dated 18.09.2012, the defendants were granted leave to

contest the suit, subject to their filing an FDR or bank guarantee for Rs.60 lacs

to the satisfaction of the concerned Joint Registrar within two weeks from the

date of the order. It was further directed that on failure of the defendants to file

either FDR or bank guarantee of Rs.60 lacs within two weeks, the application

for leave to contest shall stand rejected. The learned counsel for the defendants

states that the defendants are not in a position to furnish the bank guarantee or

the FDR. Consequently, the application filed by the defendants for leave to

contest the suit stands dismissed and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment

forthwith.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1, who is the wife of

defendant No. 2, agreed to sell her land comprised in Mauza Siwana, Siraska,

Tehsil Sohana, District Gurgaon, Haryana to him for a consideration of Rs.54

lakh and received that much amount by way of various cheques, detailed in para

5 of the plaint. An agreement dated 01.07.2008 was executed between the

parties in this regard. Defendant No. 1 is alleged to have been executed a

receipt, confirming the payment received from the plaintiff. It is further alleged

that later on defendant No. 1 backed out of the agreement and refused to

execute the sale document in favour of the plaintiff. She agreed to return the

amount received from the plaintiff along with Rs 60 lacs as compensation and

for this purpose, defendants issued two cheques of Rs 30 lakh each from their

joint account and the agreement dated 01.07.2008 was returned to them along

with original receipt. The cheques, when presented to the bank, were

dishonoured with the endorsement "funds insufficient". The plaintiff has now

claimed that amount of the aforesaid two cheques in the present suit filed under

Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. It is not in dispute that the defendants issued two cheques to the plaintiff

and those cheques, when presented to the bank, were dishonoured. The learned

counsel appearing for the plaintiff states that original cheques have been filed in

proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The certified

copies of the cheques are, however, on record. The plaintiff has also filed the

bank memos evidencing return of the cheques by the banker of the defendants

for want of insufficient funds. Being based on dishonoured cheques, this suit

is maintainable under Order XXXVII of CPC. Hence, a decree for recovery of

Rs.60 lacs with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum is, hereby

passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

The suits and all IAs stand disposed of.

Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

V.K.JAIN, J OCTOBER 08, 2012 rb