RAJ KAMAL MISRA Vs. ANIL KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 6th June, 2016, by which the application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") has been allowed and the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") has been rejected as being barred by limitation.

(2.) Briefly the case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and the Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant") were on friendly terms for a long time. The Defendant approached the Plaintiff in 2007 for a friendly loan and the following sums were advanced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

(3.) The case of the Defendant is that the transaction was in relation to the purchase of a watch, which was given by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. It was an expensive Rolex Gold Date-Just President Watch, which was sold by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for Rs. 8 Lakhs. It is thereafter pleaded that the Plaintiff obtained signatures on blank papers on which the mortgage deed and promissory note have been typed out. Insofar as the two cheques are concerned, the Defendant claims that the same were given to the Plaintiff towards purchase of leather jackets. The Defendant then pleads that since the transaction was 'foggy' he admitted in an email "in a noble and ethical manner that he would pay Rs.10 Lakhs." Thus, the Defendant contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed. In fact, it was claimed that the Defendant is liable to recover Rs. 8 Lakhs from the Plaintiff.