EXCEL MANAGEMENT FOUNDATION Vs. RAJIVKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner - original defendant seeks to challenge judgment, order and decree dated 21.04.2005 passed by City Civil Judge, Court No.19, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Regular Summary Civil Suit No.3326 of 2003, whereby, the learned City Civil Judge rejected the application Exh.10 preferred by the petitioner herein - original defendant praying for leave to defend the summary suit under the provisions of Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarized as under :

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel appearing for respective parties and having perused the impugned order under challenge, I am of the view that no error much less an error of law can be said to have been committed by learned City Civil Judge in passing the impugned order. It is an undisputed fact that an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was deposited by the respondent - original plaintiff with the petitioner - original defendant. There was an agreement between the parties. Petitioner - original defendant was obliged as per the agreement to pay the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs along with interest in favour of the respondent - original plaintiff within 45 days. There is no dispute with the fact that a cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs i.e. the principal amount was drawn by the petitioner - original defendant in favour of respondent - original plaintiff but the same came to be dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner - original defendant. It is thereafter that the summary suit came to be filed by the respondent - original plaintiff. The contention on behalf of the petitioner - original defendant that he has not a partner of defendant No.1 Firm, but, he is a proprietor of defendant No.1 Firm and therefore, the receipt is a bogus receipt and he has not signed the receipt, cannot be accepted and treated as a triable issue because the same prima facie appears to be dishonest. Learned City Civil Judge to my mind has taken care of all aspects in paragraph 4 of the impugned order which reads as under :