ARUN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. RAM PHOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) By this judgment I will dispose of three Civil Revision Nos. 703,838 and 839 of 1991 since common question arises in these petitions.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the promissory notes as well asreceipts were issued without consideration and were given in blank to oneChander Shekhar who had agreed to get the premises vacated from the tenantsof the petitioner and the amount was to be collected by Chander Shekar butwas ultimately to be paid to the tenants on the premises being vacated. Thepetitioner further states that in the meantime the petitioner got the premisesvaeated by entering into appropriate deals with the tenants directly. In thecircumstances, there was no occasion to make the payments to the said tenantsthroough Chander Shekhar. The receipts as well as promissory notes wereissued according to the petitioner in blank and when the deal did not gothrough the said Shri Chander Shekhar he put up the names of seven partiesto institute 7 suits against the petitioner. Three of them are covered by thepresent petitions being disposed of today.