RAM SNEHI Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No. 38828/2018 (delay in filing) & CM No. 38829/2018 (delay in re-filing)

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that the appellant/defendant was given by the respondent/plaintiff a loan for a total sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Out of the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- was paid by cheque on 13.03.2017, another sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by cheque on 06.05.2014, and a further balance sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- was paid in cash in March 2014. The appellant/defendant in confirmation of the loan signed the Loan Agreement dated 26.05.2014 as also the Receipt of the same date for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Loan was repayable in 11 months but since the same was not repaid hence the subject suit under Order XXXVII CPC was filed.

(3.) The appellant/defendant filed his leave to defend application by pleading that the Loan Agreement and Receipt are not valid documents because the said two documents were signed by the appellant/defendant but they were not signed towards the alleged loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- but because the respondent/plaintiff, who was working in HDFC Bank, stated that he would assist the appellant/defendant in getting a loan on his car and through this loan taken from the bank, a part amount would be used for repaying the loan taken by appellant/defendant from the father of respondent/plaintiff. It was pleaded by the appellant/defendant that in March 2014, he had taken a loan of Rs. 1,65,000/- from the father of the respondent/plaintiff and thereafter another loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- in May 2014 and these loans were repaid. It is pleaded by the appellant/defendant that he signed the Loan Agreement and Receipt dated 26.05.2014 in blank and not for confirmation of the loan which the respondent/plaintiff alleges, but the same were signed for taking of the loan on car from HDFC Bank. It was also pleaded by the appellant/defendant that the loan taken from the father of the respondent/plaintiff was repaid back partly in cash and partly by supplying groceries to the father of the respondent/plaintiff. It was also pleaded by the appellant/defendant that when he took loan from the father of the respondent/plaintiff, he gave two cheques as security to the father of the respondent/plaintiff being cheque nos. 845153 and 845157, but these cheques were not returned by the father of the respondent/plaintiff even after repayment of loan on the ground that these cheques have been misplaced.