Ankit Sharma vs Shilpi Arora
2018 Latest Caselaw 6489 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          RFA No.887/2018

%                                               29th October, 2018

ANKIT SHARMA                                          ..... Appellant
                           Through:      Ms. Parul Verma, Advocate
                                         (M. No.9711771157).
                           versus

SHILPI ARORA                                         ..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.45104/2018(exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. Nos.45103/2018 (for condonation of delay in filing) & 45105/2018(for condonation of delay in re-filing)

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 98 days

in filing and 37 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned subject to just

exceptions.

C.M.s stand disposed of.

RFA No.887/2018 and C.M. No.45102/2018(stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit

impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 02.01.2018 by which

the trial court has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by

the appellant/defendant and has decreed the suit for recovery of the

loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs with respect to which a cheque was given

by the appellant/defendant and which was dishonored on presentation.

4. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed

the subject suit under Order XXXVII CPC pleading that two loans of

Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.8 lakhs were granted by the respondent/plaintiff to

the appellant/defendant in the year 2015. Originally the loan was

granted of Rs.6 lakhs and thereafter another loan was granted of Rs.8

lakhs. When the loan amount of Rs.6 lakhs was given, the

appellant/defendant had issued for repayment a cheque dated

01.05.2015 bearing no.965880 of State Bank of India, Rani Bagh

Market Sharkur Basti, Delh-34 and this cheque of Rs. 6 Lakhs was

dishonored on presentation with the remarks 'funds insufficient' vide

Return Memo dated 02.05.2015, and therefore, the subject suit was

filed under Order XXXVII CPC.

5. The appellant/defendant filed the leave to defend

application and in the leave to defend application except generally

denying the case of the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant

laid out no positive defence as to why the cheque which bore his

signatures and issued from the account of the appellant/defendant was

with the respondent/plaintiff, and why this cheque was dishonoured

for insufficient funds.

6. The trial court has dismissed the leave to defend

application by observing that once there is no dispute that the cheque

bears the signatures of the appellant/defendant, and by also effectively

holding that the cheque is indubitably of the bank account of the

appellant/defendant, and this cheque which has been dishonored not

for any other reason but only for insufficiency of funds, hence no

grounds are made out for leave to defend.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued

before this Court that there are various FIRs between the parties and

that the appellant/defendant was kidnapped and other facts are also

now pleaded orally for the first time, however, all these facts in the

opinion of this Court cannot be looked into because none of these facts

are found to be stated in the leave to defend application. Therefore,

this Court is forced to conclude that these facts raised, which in any

case cannot be raised at the first appellate stage challenging the

judgment dismissing the leave to defend, are without any basis

whatsoever.

8. The principles with respect to leave to defend have been

recently encapsulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment

in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Limited,

(2017) 1 SCC 568 and the relevant paras of which judgment read as

under:-

"17. Accordingly, the principles stated in paragraph 8 of Mechelec case will now stand superseded, given the amendment of Order 37 Rule 3, and the binding decision of four judges in Milkhiram case, as follows:

17.1. If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit.

17.2 If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the Plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the Defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

17.3 Even if the Defendant raises triable issues, if a doubt is left with the trial judge about the Defendant's good faith, or the genuineness of the triable issues, the trial judge may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court or furnishing security. Care must be taken to see that the object of the provisions to assist expeditious disposal of commercial causes is not defeated. Care must also be taken to see that such triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe orders as to deposit or security.

17.4 If the Defendant raises a defence which is plausible but improbable, the trial Judge may impose conditions as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court, or furnishing security. As such a defence does not raise triable issues, conditions as to deposit or security or both can extend to the entire principal sum together with such interest as the court feels the justice of the case requires.

17.5 If the Defendant has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues, and the court finds such defence to be frivolous or vexatious, then leave to defend the suit shall be refused, and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith.

17.6 If any part of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff is admitted by the Defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit, (even if triable issues or a substantial defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the Defendant in court."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has therefore held that once

defence is frivolous or vexatious or in the case that the

appellant/defendant has failed to show a bona fide triable issue, leave

to defend has to be refused. In the present case, as already stated

above, except generally denying the case of the respondent/plaintiff,

the appellant/defendant laid out no positive defence and it is not

disputed by the appellant/defendant that the cheque is signed by the

appellant/defendant, and which was dishonored on presentation on

account of insufficient funds. The trial court was therefore justified in

dismissing the leave to defend application.

10. There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.

OCTOBER 29, 2018/Ne                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J