Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Nasa Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Dr. Sandhya Randive Goyal & Ors. on 20 May, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 20th OF MAY, 2024
FIRST APPEAL No. 213 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1. M/S NASAA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 11,
R.N.T. MARG, 305, MANAS BHAWAN,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ARUN S/O BALMUKUND GOYAL, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE, R/O 14-15, PARSI MOHALLA,
GALI NO.1, SANYOGITAGANJ INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KISHOR RATHORE S/O SHRI SHANTILAL
RATHOR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O 14, ANAND
NAGAR, TOWER CHOURAHA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AASIT S/O BHASKAR BHATT, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, R/O 84, TIJAURI GALI,
SIYAGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2; AND
SHRI TARUN KUMAR MODI - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS NO.3 AND 4)
AND
DR. SANDHYA RANDIVE W/O DR. SHAILENDRA
GOYAL, AGED 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION
DOCTOR, ADDRESS : RAMASHRAY HOSPITAL
AND RESEARCH CENTRE, VIVEKANAND
MARKET, MOTI TABELA, INDORE (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 27-05-2024
10:50:58
2
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VIMAL KUMAR GANGWAL - ADVOCATE)
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (in short, 'CPC') has been preferred by the appellants / defendants
against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30/11/2002 passed by
the Additional District Judge, Indore (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.38-B of
2002, whereby decree of a sum of Rs.1,16,787/- along with interest @
10.5 per annum has been passed against the appellants.
02. The respondent No.1 / plaintiff's case before the trial Court in
brief is that defendant is a registered partnership firm, which runs trade
of finance through its partners. Earlier the plaintiff was running
Ramashray Maternity Home at Mumbai, thereafter, in the year 1990
she shifted to Indore and constructed Ramashray Hospital and Research
Center. She has invested total Rs.1,70,000/- in the defendants' Finance
Company. When she demanded her money back with interest, then
defendants denied to the same. Thereafter, she has given a notice to the
defendants and later on filed a civil suit for recovery of the same
amount.
03. Defendant No.1 has denied all the averments of plaint by
submitting in his written statement that plaintiff has invested the said
amount for trading of the share, but the plaintiff got loss in such trading
and vide order dated 02/04/1994 plaintiff has informed that she is ready
to pay the dues and the remaining balance will be clear by her in due
course. Nothing is due against the defendants, therefore, they are not
liable for any payment.
04. On the basis of the aforesaid pleading, the trial Court has framed
the issues and after recording the evidence, suit has been decreed
against the appellants / defendants. Being aggrieved by the same,
appellants have preferred this appeal.
05. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is against the law and
facts. The trial Court has given erroneous findings regarding the
document Ex.-D/1. The trial Court has ignored the nature of the
account and given erroneous findings. Material witness Kishore
Rahtore was not examined before the trial Court. Hence, it is prayed
that impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit filed
before the trial Court be dismissed.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes
the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that impugned
judgment and decree passed by the Court below is just and proper and
not deserve for any interference.
07. During the pendency of this appeal, defendants No.2 and 3,
which were initially made party as respondents No.2 and 3, have filed
applications i.e. I.A.No.2954/2009 and 2956/2005 for transposing them
as appellants and vide order dated 19/11/2010, both the applications
were allowed and they have been transposed as appellant No.2 and 3.
08. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused
the entire record with due care.
09. Appellants have preferred an application under Order XLI Rule
27 read with Section 151 of the CPC i.e. I.A.No.8773/2005 for taking
additional documents in evidence on record , but the documents which
were filed with the aforesaid application were available with the
appellants at the time of evidence. Appellants did not assign any good
reason for not producing the same before the trial Court. These
documents are filed after huge delay of 20 years after filing the civil
suit before the trial Court. The proposed document is only a photocopy
of a letter, which is not admissible in evidence. Hence,
I.A.No.8773/2005 is meaningless and is dismissed accordingly.
10. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants are based
upon documents Ex.-D/1 in which plaintiff Dr. Sandhya Randive
admits her signature, but it is noteworthy that the letter Ex.-D/1 is
addressed to appellant No.3 Kishore, therefore, this is quite clear that
the letter was possessed by the respondent No.3 Kishore, but Kishore
was not examined before the trial Court. In letter (Ex.-D/1) it has been
mentioned that loss incurred in share trading account, but appellants
did not produce any relevant documents regarding the said trading
transaction between both the parties. Plaintiff Dr. Sandhya Randive in
her cross-examination admits that she was not involved in the share
business and she never gave any amount to the defendants to invest the
same in share trading.
11. From perusal of the Ex.-D/1 it appears that it is not an
acknowledgment of amount regarding the said transaction, which is the
subject matter of instant matter, therefore, contention made by learned
counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is also contended by the
appellant No.3 that he has resigned from the appellant No.1 Partnership
Firm in the year 1991, but the appellant No.3 has failed to prove the
same by his evidence, therefore, contention of appellant No.3 is not
acceptable.
12. From perusal of the evidence, which was recorded before the
trial Court, it appears that the statement of Dr. Sandhya Randive is well
supported by the documentary evidence (Ex.-P/1 to P/6), therefore, the
findings recorded by the trial Court is based upon cogent evidence
available on record. The statement of defendant Arun Goyal is not
supported by the documentary evidence available on record, therefore,
the trial Court has rightly accepted the evidence adduced by the
plaintiff / respondent No.1.
13. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Court below has not committed any error of law and fact while
decreeing the suit of plaintiff / respondent No.1. The impugned
judgment and decree passed by the Court below does not suffer from
any illegality or perversity and no interference is warranted.
14. Accordingly, the first appeal stands dismissed and the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is affirmed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
J U D G E
Tej
