RAJ SAKHUJA Vs. RAKESH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Raj Sakhuja, plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.7,27,000.00 invoking Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The facts alleged are that defendant had approached plaintiff to loan certain amount to him for the promotion and enhancement of his business. He had promised that he would pay interest of 18% p.a. On the inducement of the defendant plaintiff gave a loan of Rs.3,60,000.00 in cash, namely Rs.60,000.00 on 25/11/1992 and Rs.3,00,000.00 on 17/4/1993. The loan was for commercial/business purposes. The defendant and had failed to pay the amount within the stipulated time. On continuous follow up with the defendant in discharge of his liability he issued two cheques drawn on Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd, Daryaganj i.e. cheque dated 29/12/1995 for Rs.60,000.00 and another of 30/12/1995 for Rs.3,00,000.00 lakhs. The plaintiff presented those cheques for collection to the bank but they were dishonoured with the remarks "funds insufficient". The defendant when informed expressed his regrets and requested the plaintiff to re-present the said cheques which were again dishonoured. It is asserted that the amount claimed has not been paid and the suit has been filed calculating the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the abovesaid amount.

(3.) On the notice having been served the defendant has preferred an application under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of leave to defend and contest the suit. It has been asserted that plaintiff has been intimate with the defendant. Both have been deeply involved in unlawful business of betting. The betting was done usually non cricket and various other events. The defendant was introduced by one of the friends of the plaintiff, namely Sanjay. Defendant has been visiting the plaintiff who had carried on illegal and unlawful business of money lending contrary to the provision of Money Lending act. During one of those moments the plaintiff insisted that defendant should secure the amount which may become due from the defendant in case he looses high stake bets. In order to create false case against the defendant blank cheques,were taken and were filled up by the plaintiff. In fact the cheques had been given in 1992 while the plaintiff had filled them up in 1995.