SALEEM KHATRI Vs. SHAFIQUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent. None appeared on behalf of respondent even on the last date of hearing. The petitioner is the defendant in the Civil Suit No. 61/2012 filed by the respondent/Shafiquddin under Order 37 CPC for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,66,425/- based on a cheque. The case of the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint is that the plaintiff transferred a Slaughter House to the defendant in consideration whereof, the petitioner/defendant paid a sum of Rs. 4,62,425/- by way of a cheque which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The plaintiff/respondent sent a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) In the Civil Suit filed by the respondent under Order 37 CPC for recovery of the amount of Rs. 4,62,425/-, the petitioner filed a leave to defend application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court to try the suit as according to the defendant, the agreement was executed at Gurgaon, Haryana and the Slaughter House was situated at Doha, Haryana and no cause of action took place in Delhi and hence, the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further stated that the possession of the Slaughter House was never handed over to the petitioner/defendant and hence the transaction having not taken place, there was no reason why the cheque ought to have been encashed.

(3.) In the suit, though, the plaintiff claimed that they had delivered the possession of the Slaughter House, however, no document showing the transfer or delivery of the Slaughter House was filed. Further, the agreement entered into between the parties was also not filed. In view of these facts, the learned trial court granted the leave to defend to the petitioner/defendant subject to the deposit of the cheque amount/furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of the cheque amount vide the impugned order.