Appearing Court rejected the appeal filed against the dismissal of a leave to defend application. The trial court held that the appellant was estopped by his earlier statements regarding the cheques bearing his signature and the inconsistency between his defence and prior admissions.
Appeal dismissed; exemption from market fee allowed subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Reserved on: 29th November, 2017 % Pronounced on: 4th December, 2017
NARESH KUMAR JAIN
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil K. Jain, Advocate with Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
LALLAN SHAH ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
C.M. Nos. 43487/2017 (exemption) & 43489/2017 (exemption)
C.M. No.43491/2017 (for condonation of delay)
days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA No.1002/2017 and C.M. Nos.43488/2017 (stay) & 43490/2017 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC)
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the Trial
RFA No.1002/2017 Page 1 of 6
Court dated 5.12.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.6,28,889.34/- along with interest
RFA No.1002/2017 Page 2 of 6
appellant/defendant dated 25.5.2013, and thereafter filed the subject suit.
appellant/defendant it was pleaded that the appellant/defendant had nothing to do with the respondent/plaintiff and the subject cheques were never given to the respondent/plaintiff. It was pleaded by the appellant/defendant that the subject cheques were given to one Sh. Brij Bhushan as the appellant/defendant was pressurized to give some pre-signed blank cheques to the said Sh. Brij Bhushan. However the matter was pleaded to have been settled between the appellant/defendant and Sh. Brij Bhushan whereby Sh. Brij Bhushan agreed and admitted that there is no due against the appellant/defendant. This agreement was supported by the letters accordingly written by Sh. Brij Bhushan in his hands bearing his own signatures. The subject cheques were given to Sh. Brij Bhushan as security which were to be returned after settlement but Sh. Brij Bhushan failed to do so and it is pleaded in the leave to defend application that it appears said Sh. Brij Bhushan had handed over the
RFA No.1002/2017 Page 3 of 6
subject cheques to the respondent/plaintiff who has misused them and filed the subject suit.
RFA No.1002/2017 Page 4 of 6
respondent/plaintiff and that Sh. Brij Bhushan appeared to have illegally given the subject cheques to the respondent/plaintiff. Trial court in my opinion also rightly held that the appellant/defendant was served in the suit on 26.7.2013 but till the disposal of the leave to defend application on 5.12.2016 it is no where the case of the appellant/defendant that he has initiated any action against Sh. Brij Bhushan for failing to return the cheques or misusing the cheques by giving the same to the respondent/plaintiff. Trial court has further rightly held that it is difficult to believe that the appellant/defendant would not have taken action against Sh. Brij Bhushan in case his plea was correct that the cheques were wrongly given by Sh. Brij Bhushan to the respondent/plaintiff.
RFA No.1002/2017 Page 5 of 6
cheques and thereafter till the subject suit was filed in the year 2014 and even till the leave to defend application was disposed of on 5.12.2016, with the fact that no legal action whatsoever was initiated by the appellant/defendant against Sh. Brij Bhushan for alleged illegal retention of the cheques, and to this court query the counsel for the appellant/defendant had no answer.
Dismissed.
DECEMBER 04, 2017/ Ne VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
RFA No.1002/2017 Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the dismissal of the leave to defend should be allowed given the inconsistency between the deposit statement and the defence pleaded.
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the leave to defend application based on the procedural history and lack of action against the alleged third party.
Whether the High Court should allow the exemption from filing a market fee.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
NARESH KUMAR JAIN
LALLAN SHAH
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
