VIRENDER KUMAR KANSAL Vs. GIRDHARI LAL GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of an application under Order 37 rule 3 (5) CPC made by the Defendant seeking leave to defend.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that Plaintiff filed a suit under Order 37 CPC against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 41,25,000/- (Rs. Forty One Lac Twenty Five thousand) along with pendent lite and future interest. The Plaintiff pleaded that Defendant issued four cheques Nos. 041122, 041123, 041124 and 041127 all dated 31/01/2004 drawn on Lord Krishana Bank, Pitam Pura, Delhi to the Plaintiff in order to discharge his liability of debt for valuable consideration. The aforesaid cheques were presented by the Plaintiff through his bank and the said cheques were received back from the bank dis-honoured with the endorsement that payment had been stopped. Plaintiff thereafter issued notices to the Defendant for payment of the amount of cheque, still no payment was made. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of four cheques totalling to Rs. 41,25,000/- along with interest thereon. The Suit was filed as a Summary Trial suit since it was based on dis-honoured cheques.

(3.) IN the application under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC Defendant has taken stand that the suit was not maintainable being barred under Section 3 of the Punjab Registration and Money Lenders Act. The suit was for recovery of commercial loan and in absence of money lending certificate, as prescribed under the aforesaid Act, the suit could not be filed. The other ground taken is that plaintiff had not provided loan to the Defendant. The cheques were not issued by the Defendant in discharge of loan liability. All the four cheques were given to the Plaintiff by Defendant on 1/12/2003 as Post Dated Cheques as advance payment for supply of computer parts to be imported from UK. When plaintiff failed to supply the goods, the Defendant stopped the payment of all the four cheques by writing letter to his bank. The cheques were given by the defendant without date. At the time of receiving cheques, Plaintiff had assured defendant that goods would be cleared upto first week of January 2004 and the cheques would be encashed only after supplying the goods. Since no goods were supplied by first week of January 2004, the Defendant gave directions to its bank for stopping payments and asked Plaintiff to return the cheques.