Anip Bhatia vs Sanjeev Thakur
2015 Latest Caselaw 5136 Del

$~27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      RFA 46/2015 & CM No.1296/2015
       ANIP BHATIA                                     ..... Appellant
                          Through:    Mr. Avinash Tyagi, Adv.

                          versus

       SANJEEV THAKUR                     ..... Respondent
                      Through: None.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                ORDER

% 17.07.2015

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2014. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appellant's application for leave to defend filed under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(5) read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed. The trial court has dismissed the application principally for the reason that no defence was disclosed and, as a matter of fact, it was found that the defence taken (for whatever it is worth), to be "sham" and "moonshine".

2. It is not disputed even today before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that a cheque, albeit a blank cheque, bearing No.435478 dated 1.3.2013 was signed and handed over to the respondent. It is also not disputed that a promissory note dated 9.12.2010 was signed and handed over to the respondent.

3. According to the appellant, the cheque was not filled up and, therefore, it did not reflect any value for which it was given to the respondent.

4. The impugned judgment, returns a finding of fact that the cheque was in the sum of Rs.10 lakhs. What has also emerged from the record is that at the rear of the cheque the following endorsement was made by the appellant:-

"....yeh cheque main udhar chukta karney ke liye de raha hun. (This cheque is being issued by me for the purpose to clear the borrowed amount)..."

5. It is not disputed by the appellant and, as also found by the trial court, this endorsement was made by the appellant.

6. In these circumstances, I put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant would be in a position to deposit at least Rs.8 lakhs in court. The appellant, who is present in court, says that he is unable to deposit the amount.

7. According to me, therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned judgement and decree.

8. The appeal is dismissed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JULY 17, 2015 s.pal