NARESH JAIN Vs. INDU RANI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Indu Rani Jain filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,00,350/- with interest @ 15% p.a pendentelite and future with costs of the suit. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.03 passed by the learned Additional District Jude, Delhi who have passed a decree of Rs.2,97,050/- with interest @ 15% p.a. The defendants in the suit have challenged the correctness of the decree before this Court in the present Regular First Appeal.

(2.) According to the respondent in the appeal, the appellant were carrying on the business of gold and diamond Jewellery under the name and style of M/s Arihant Jewels, Delhi. Appellant no.1 is the propereitor of appellant no.2. The respondent had advanced a loan of Rs. 1,95000/- to the appellant on 28.7.99. The loan was agreed to be returned and repaid with interest @ 15% p.a. The loan was not returned despite repeated requests and reminders. The respondent filed a suit for recovery with the following details: " The break up of the amount claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants given in para 2 of the plaint is as under :- <FRM> i)Principal Amount : Rs.1,95,000/- ii)Interest till filing : Rs.1,02,050/- of the suit iii)Notice fees and other : Rs.3,300/- Charges --------------------- Rs.3,00,50/- ----------------------- </FRM>

(3.) Appellant contested the said suit. He took up the plea that the suit was barred by time and was also not maintainable in view of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934. Besides taking these objections of law even in relation to jurisdiction of the Court, it was stated that the loan of Rs. 1,95,000/- was taken but liability to repay the same was denied on the ground that the respondent had taken Jewellery to the tune of Rs.2,30,785/- vide the bill dated 11.10.2000 on which even the Sales Tax was paid by the appellant as such nothing was payable to the respondent, in fact, a sum of Rs. 15,911/- was due on the respondent. Keeping in view the above pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues on 27.3.03: