JITENDRA VIRWANI Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (Mr. Jitendra Virwani) has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning a judgement dtd. 23/4/2019 (hereafter 'the impugned judgement'), whereby the appellant's application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter 'the CPC') seeking unconditional leave to defend the suit being [CS(OS) No.356/2017 captioned Santosh Kumar Garg v. Jitendra Virwani] was rejected. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent (Mr. Santosh Kumar Garg) for recovery of a sum of Rs.71,86,00,000.00 (Rupees Seventy-one Crores Eighty-six Lakhs Only), along with interest was decreed. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had not raised any triable issues and the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) was entitled to the decree of the sum of Rs.71,86,00,000.00 as claimed along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

(2.) The appellant claims that the learned Single Judge had erred in not appreciating that the respondent's claim was beyond the period of limitation as the respondent had predicated his claim on the basis of a cheque dtd. 23/7/2014, which was more than three years prior to the date of institution of the suit. The appellant claims that in addition, he had raised several triable issues including that the said amount was not payable as the respondent had violated the Non-Solicitation Agreement (hereafter 'the NSA').

(3.) The appellant contends that the Trial Court had relied on certain emails for accepting that the appellant had acknowledged the debt. However, the said email was disputed. Further, the respondent had not produced any certificate under Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in respect of the said evidence.