SUSHILA GIRI Vs. NITISH KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Regular First Appeal is the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2015 in Civil Suit No.459/2014 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-02 (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short learned ADJ) by which the application of the appellant/defendant to grant him leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) was dismissed and consequently the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- with cost and pendente lite interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- against the appellant/defendant alleging therein that the appellant/defendant has been residing in his neighbourhood along with her husband Sh. Jaiprakash, who is working as a constable with Uttar Pradesh Police and work as tout with several colleges/institutions for the purpose of admissions. The respondent/plaintiff also claimed that the relations between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant were like brother and sister and they were on visiting terms. In the month of July, 2012 the respondent/plaintiff intended to have his admission in MBBS course and for that purpose the father of the plaintiff had spoken to the appellant/defendant for help. The appellant/defendant and her husband visited the house of the respondent/plaintiff and told his father that they will get the respondent/plaintiff admitted in the medical college. The appellant/defendant informed the father of the respondent/plaintiff that the expenses would be approximately Rs.7,00,000/- which includes college fees and transportations, etc. The respondent/plaintiff and his father had agreed to bear all the expenses. In July, 2012, the father of the respondent/plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant and in the month of October, 2012 further a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was handed over to the appellant/defendant.

(3.) It is further alleged that in the month of November, 2012, when the respondent/plaintiff asked the appellant/defendant about his admission and the receipt of the expenses of Rs.7,00,000/-, he found that the appellant/defendant did not deposit the aforesaid amount with the medical college. On making several requests and visits by the respondent/plaintiff and his father, the appellant/defendant on 07.06.2013 issued a cheque No.585247 dated 07.06.2013 for Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Shahdhara, Delhi in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. However, the said cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on 18.06.2013 vide Memo dated 21.06.2013 for the reason "payment stopped by drawer". The respondent/plaintiff immediately informed the appellant/defendant about the dishonour of the cheque and asked her to refund his money, who did not pay the said amount on one pretext or another. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short N.I. Act ) before the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.