(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Order 41 Rule (1) of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 7/2003.
(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,37,500/- together with interest under the provisions of Order 37 of the CPC. The respondent claimed to be a resident of Mumbai and was looking for a suitable place/plot of land and she got in touch with the defendants for this purpose. She agreed to purchase two plots of land measuring about 200 sq. yds each from the defendants and the parties entered into two memorandums of understanding dated 12.4.1996 under which the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs against the said two plots by cheques. She also paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash. The terms of the agreement also provided that if she did not desire to acquire the plots after expiry of one year, the defendants would have to refund Rs. 6,20,000/-each towards the principal amount plus interest. She had entered into the two agreements in relation to each plot separately with the defendants. Appellant No. 2 had further wanted to extend the MOU for a period of six months and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,60,000/- to the plaintiff by 12.10.1997. The first two memorandums of understanding were superceded by two new memorandums of understanding. She vide her letter dated 15.9.1997 informed the defendants that she was not interested in the two plots and she wanted refund of Rs. 13,80,000/- from the defendants. The defendants made a total payment of Rs. 6 lakhs in four installments and they issued a letter in the nature of promissory note on 6.6.98 acknowledging the liability of ten lakhs and agreed to pay and refund the said amount by 19th July, 1998 along with simple interest @ 24% p.a. Despite request, the amount was not paid to the plaintiff, resulting in filing of the suit for recovery of Rs. 12,37,500/- in terms of subsequent memorandum of understanding entered into between the parties.
(3.) Summons in the suit under Order 37 of the CPC were issued to the defendants who filed an application for leave to defend the suit. In the application for leave to defend, the defendants took up the plea that the plaintiff had created false and fabricated evidence and no cause of action had arisen in her favour. It was also their plea that no rate of interest and its basis had been stated in the plaint. The investment was made in terms of MOU dated 12.4.1996. It was also the case of the defendants that the payment of Rs. 6 lakhs had not been disclosed by the plaintiff in her plaint and the letter dated 1.9.2000 could not be considered as a promissory note and they prayed for dismissal of the suit. However, the learned ADJ trying the suit, vide order dated 23.10.2004 dismissed the application for leave to defend and passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 12,37,500/- with @ 24% simple interest per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization.