GOODWILL APPARTMENTS PVT LTD Vs. SPML INFRA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in IA No. 4562/2013. That application was filed by the respondents / defendants seeking leave to defend inasmuch as the appellants / plaintiffs had filed the suit (CS(OS) No. 3287/2012) under Order XXXVII CPC. The basis of the suit are four cheques each of the value of Rs 50 lakhs which have been referred to in the impugned order. The total value of the recovery sought in the suit is Rs 3.05 crores which obviously includes the value of the said four cheques along with the interest thereon.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge noted that all the said cheques were apparently dated 20.10.2009, 20.11.2009, 20.12.2009 and 20.01.2010. It has been alleged by the plaintiffs that the cheques were provided by the respondents / defendants as consideration for the consultancy services provided by the appellants / plaintiffs to the respondents / defendants. This has of course been controverted in the leave to defend application filed on behalf of the respondents / defendants. In the leave to defend application, the respondents / defendants had set up the defence that the plaintiffs had represented that they were the owners of the property bearing No. E-82, Greater Kailash ­ I, New Delhi. It was claimed that the said property was a three storeyed building along with the basement and each level had a carpet area of 2,700 sq. feet. Furthermore, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had represented that the said property was situated on a plot measuring 500 sq. yards and the parties had agreed for sale of the said property by the appellants / plaintiffs to the respondents / defendants for a sale consideration of about Rs 20 crores. The case of the respondents / defendants is that a proposal was discussed with the plaintiffs, and particularly, between plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 2 in April 2009 when the four cheques which according to the defendants were post dated were issued to the appellants / plaintiffs as token amounts on the understanding that the plaintiff No. 2 would provide the title deed and other related documents of the said property to the defendants within six months for necessary title search and verification. However, plaintiff No. 2 failed to provide the necessary documents and accordingly on 15.10.2009, stop payment instructions were issued in respect of the four cheques by the respondents / defendants to their bank.

(3.) IN view of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.