DEVI LAL GARG Vs. HARI KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal filed under Section 96 of the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, 1908 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2005 passed by the learned trial court, whereby the suit of the respondents was decreed for a sum of Rs.4 lacs along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 01.05.2003 till realization.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant and respondent no. 3 had taken an amount of Rs. 4 lacs from the respondent no. 1,2, and 4 in lieu of the promise that they would arrange the services of the respondent no.1,2 and 4 in USA. However as the appellant and respondent no.3 failed to arrange their service in USA, the respondents sent a notice for returning the money paid to them by notice dated 1.4.03 to the appellant and respondent no.3, which was not replied to. Consequently, a suit for recovery was filed by the respondent no.1 and 2 which vide judgment and decree dated 7.4.05 was decreed for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs alongwith interest @6 p.a from 1.2.03 till realization, in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. However, in the present appeal only the appellant and the respondent no.1 and 2 are contesting parties.

(3.) COUNSEL further submitted that the suit filed by the respondents was based on forged and fabricated documents which were got executed from the appellant in the Police Station, Mahipalpur under the threats extended by the respondent No.1 with the help of one ASI namely Anil Bhairwal. Counsel also submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the transaction of providing employment to the respondents, who were working as Supervisors/Managers with M/s. Concorde Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., at the hands of the respondent No.1 who was a garbage collector, was highly improbable. Counsel also submitted that DW-2 Shri Jaidev Solanki in his evidence has clearly demolished both the documents i.e. Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, which documents form the sole basis on which the said monetary claim of the respondents rests. Counsel also submitted that the alleged receipt/promissory note was not properly cancelled as per the requirement of Section 12 of the Indian Stamp Act and, therefore, Ex.P-2 is inadmissible in the eyes of law and the same cannot be enforced. Counsel also submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly drawn adverse inference against the appellant for an insignificant delay of two months on the part of the appellant in lodging the complaint with the concerned police station against the highhandedness of the respondents and the said police official. Based on these submissions, counsel for the appellant pleaded for setting aside of the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.