DEEPAK ARORA Vs. S N SAPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to defend filed by the defendant in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The plaint averred as follows:

(3.) The defendant had filed an application for leave to defend, IA 1162 of 2002, and the affidavit in support of the application. The contention of the defendant is that no cash was paid by the plaintiff and the sum of Rs.30 lacs was incurred by the plaintiff by way of purchasing material, payment to labour etc. He further stated that the building in question remained sealed in the year 1996-97 and was demolished in the year 1996-99 and, therefore, the whole investment made by the plaintiff nd the defendant went in vain. The total sum invested was Rs. 1.18 crores and odd and out of which Rs.30 lacs were invested by the plaintiff and the remaining by the defendant. It is further submitted that the second floor of the building was disposed of with the consent of the plaintiff to Balvinder Singh and M/s Sarin Trading Co. for a sum of Rs.20 lacs. Out of which 10 lacs were taken by the plaintiff and now only Rs. 20 lacs remained invested by the plaintiff. Since the first floor of the building could fetch only Rs.50 lacs which also could not be sold because of the rumour in the market that the building had twice been sealed and demolished by the Corporation. There is thus a loss of Rs. 40 lacs which the plaintiff is liable to share with the defendant. The plaintiff has been given opportunities to sell out the first floor but the plaintiff has threatened the defendant for extorting money by various means and civil and criminal proceedings including by filing the present suit. It is also submitted that the disputed question of facts are involved and triable issues have been raised which cannot be decided without going into evidence. Accordingly in view of the above pleas the unconditional permission for leave to defend should be granted. The defendant has given several details of the dispute between the parties including the order dated 23rd August 1991 passed in CW 2662 of 1991 where interim orders were passed restraining the illegal construction. The defendant has also given the details what according to it were the amount paid to the collaborator, M/s Mitra Specialized Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. The defendant has also given an explanation for the cost transaction between the parties including the transaction of the property in Defence Colony. However, the material averment on the issue of cheques, the only allegation made is that these were obtained from the defendant under pressure and threat against which already a police report has been lodged which is dated 24th January 1999 and seeks to offer an explanation for the issuance of the cheques by the defendant.