SARITA ARORA Vs. KIRAN KAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADJOURNMENT is prayed for on the ground of illness of the counsel. The appeal paper -book shows that there is not one counsel but there are three counsel for the appellant. Therefore, if one counsel is not available, other counsel must necessarily appear and argue because there is no reason why there should be unnecessary pendency in courts, more so in a case like the present.

(2.) THIS first appeal is filed under Order 43(1)(r) CPC impugning the order of the trial court dated 27.4.2013 by which the trial court has allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs.

(3.) THE case of the defendant no.1 was that the cheque was given by plaintiff no.2 for returning of alleged loan taken by the son of plaintiff no.1 from the defendant no.1, however, nothing was filed to show that any such loan was given by the son of the defendant no.1. The trial court also notes that the plaintiffs had placed on record the copies of the entire chain of the title documents. The trial court has given the following salient observations for allowing the application, in paras 6 to 11 of the impugned order, and which read as under: -