Prem Chadha vs Ratna Saini
2014 Latest Caselaw 5673 Del

    *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of Decision: 11th November, 2014

+       RSA 327/2014 & C.M.No.18386/2014
        PREM CHADHA                                      ..... Appellant
                           Through:     Mr. Neeraj Kumar & Mr. Ankit
                                        Aggarwal, Advocates
                           versus

        RATNA SAINI                                        ..... Respondent
                           Through:     Nemo.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                           JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Respondent-plaintiff's suit for recovery of loan amount of `65,000/- was dismissed by trial court as the loan amount by way of cheque was given by husband of respondent and it was held that there was no privity of contract between the parties. The First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment of 15th July, 2014 has reversed the trial court judgment and has decreed respondent-plaintiff's suit by holding that appellant-defendant has admitted the factum of taking up of the loan from the respondent and there being an outstanding liability of `65,000/-.

At the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the question of law which arises for consideration in this second appeal is as under:-

Whether privity of contract and privity of consideration has to be there between the parties and in the instant case, it is lacking as

RSA-327/2014 Page 1 there is no privity of consideration between the parties?

It is urged by learned counsel for appellant that the trial court had rightly dismissed the suit of the respondent on the ground of lack of privity between the parties and the First Appellate Court has erroneously decreed the suit and so, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the trial court's judgment ought to be restored.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment and trial court's judgment, I find that no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The finding returned in the impugned judgment is as under:-

"Ignoring the material facts like withdrawal of loan amount from her own bank account by the plaintiff, issuance of the cheque in favour of the defendant under the signatures of the plaintiff, repayment of the part amount i.e. Rs.70,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff being all admitted facts, simply the handing over of the cheques by the plaintiff's husband to the defendant, can certainly not lead to a conclusion that loan itself had been given by the plaintiff's husband, and not by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, to dispose of the suit on a major objection as privity of contract without even having framed any such issue, would itself not be tenable."

In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no perversity in the afore-noted findings returned in the impugned judgment.

This appeal and the application are hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

                                                        (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                          JUDGE
NOVEMBER 11, 2014
mb

RSA-327/2014                                                            Page 2