ANIL SETH Vs. RAVI GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is effective item No. 10 on the "regular board? but none appears for the Respondent although it is 2.30 pm. I am therefore, with the assistance of the learned senior counsel for the Appellant, proceeding to hear and decide the matter.

(2.) The challenge by means of the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.12.1999 whereby the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff has been decreed against the Appellant/Defendant for Rs. 60,950/- with costs and interest. It may be stated that the parties are related to each other because the Appellant?s wife?s sister is the wife of the Respondent/Plaintiff.

(3.) The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,000/-, a sum, which is mentioned in two documents exhibited as Ex.P-1/Ex.DW-1/P-1, Ex.P-2/ DW1/P1 which are respectively a promissory note and a receipt. The case set up by the Respondent-Plaintiff was that those documents acknowledge the receipt by the Appellant of the sum of Rs. 62,000/-. Though, various issues were framed and the judgment of the trial court is a detailed judgment decreeing the suit holding that the amounts were paid by the Respondent/Plaintiff to the Appellant/Defendant and which amounts were not refunded, the basic issue which has been urged on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant is that on the same date on which the promissory note and receipt dated 20.9.1986 were executed, the Respondent/Plaintiff also in the evening thereof executed the document Mark "D? by the Trial Court showing complete settlement, (and which in fact should have been exhibited - an aspect I will advert to a bit later). This document Mark D dated 20.9.1986 in the handwriting of the Respondent/Plaintiff shows that there was a complete settlement of all dues between the Appellant and the Respondent. It is also relevant to mention at this stage that the Appellant and Respondent were dealing with each other in their claimed individual capacities however payment to each other were made through their companies. The company of the Respondent /Plaintiff was M/s Future Systems Pvt. Ltd. (and it is from this company that the cheques were said to be paid to the Appellant/Defendant) and the other company is M/s Seth Construction Pvt. Ltd. of which the Appellant is the Managing Director.