PARVEEN SURI Vs. GUR HAR NARENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners/defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, in Suit No.96/1996 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking for leave to defend and passing a decree for a sum of Rs.4 lac with costs and pendente lite and future interest in favour of the respondent.

(2.) The respondent filed the aforesaid suit on 4.7.1996 under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for a decree for a sum of Rs.4 lac alongwith interest on the basis of cheques No.953930 and 953931 for Rs.2 lac each issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. The case of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint was that the plaintiff who is an Ex. Wing Commander of Indian Air Force entered into an agreement to sell dated 18.9.1996 and also executed a general power of attorney, deed of Will in 26.1.1996 in respect of the premises No.A-1/147, Janakpuri, New Delhi in favour of defendant No.1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.11 lac. He received a sum of Rs.7 lac comprising of Rs.25,000.00 received in cash against receipt and Rs.6,75,000.00 in the shape of demand drafts. For the balance amount the defendant issued two cheques dated 4.3.1996 bearing No.953930 and 953931 for a sum of Rs.2 lac each. The aforesaid cheques when presented to the bank after 10 days as requested by the defendants, were returned dishonored with the remarks "insufficient funds". It is alleged that the defendants assured the plaintiff that if the same are presented once again the same would be encashed and accordingly, the said cheques were presented to the bank but the same were again dishonored and therefore, the aforesaid suit was filed.

(3.) The defendants/petitioners sought leave to defend the aforesaid suit by moving separate but similar leave applications claiming that a sum of Rs.4 lac in cash was paid to the plaintiff on 21.1.1996 in lieu of the two cheques which are the subject matter of the suit against receipt. The aforesaid leave applications filed by the petitioners were contested by the respondent, on which the trial court heard the counsel appearing for the parties. By the impugned order the said applications were dismissed holding that the defendants have failed to raise any triable issue for grant of leave by the court to defend the suit and passed a decree as stated above.