SACHIN RAMAN DANGRA Vs. TIRUPATI DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri.Mohta. learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) This is an appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18th June, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2491 of 2009 whereby the said writ petition came to be dismissed. It is a case of the appellant that he is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1459 of 2001 filed against the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.30,375/. It is further his contention that Respondent No.2 had in May, 1998 expressed his financial difficulties in respect of his business and as such he sought for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.25,000/ to meet the business commitments. As there was default in payment of said amount, the appellant filed the suit for recovery of the amount along with the interest. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement and it is alleged that they have admitted the receipt of the sum of Rs.25,000/ on 2051998 but it was further alleged that the said amount was repaid to the appellant/ plaintiff. After the issues were framed, the appellant filed an application dated 7102008 under Order 18, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking directions to the respondents to begin with the evidence in view of the admission of receipt of the amount of Rs.25,000/. The learned trial Judge by its order dated 2322009 rejected the said application filed by the appellant. Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the said order of the learned trial Judge came to be rejected by the learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 1862009.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant inasmuch as according to him, as there was an admission of receipt of the amount, the burden with regard to repayment was squarely on the respondents and as such the respondents ought to have led their evidence before the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was to be considered as judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of Letters Patent and as such the present Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable.