ADITI WASAN Vs. SURINDER SINGH PAHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 13616/2019

(2.) It is the case of the defendant in the application that a bare reading of the plaint would show that the suit is barred by limitation. In this regard, it is stated in the application that the plaintiff herself contends having executed an agreement in October, 2017 between the company namely M/s. Wasan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'WOPL') and a partnership firm, namely M/s. Pahwa International (in short 'PI') of which the defendant is a partner. Under the said agreement WOPL was to pay PI a sum of Rs.1.25 Crores in discharge of the contractual obligations arising out of the order placed by one COMO and routed through and facilitated by WOPL. It is stated that the plaintiff now seeks a declaration of no obligation arising qua WOPL under the said agreement and the said agreement was indeed an agreement of loan between the plaintiff personally and the defendant. This contention of the plaintiff would be hit by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(3.) That apart, it is stated that one of the issues arising in the earlier instituted suit CS(COMM) No.1294/2018 in the Court of Sh. Sanjay Sharma, ADJ, Saket District Court, is as to whether the said payment of Rs.1.25 Crore was made by the plaintiff herein to the defendant herein in discharge of WOPL's liability qua PI. Hence, the proceedings cannot proceed.