ARIBAM BIJOYKUMAR SHARMA Vs. LAIPHRAKPAM BORMANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application is directed against the order dated 30.7.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Imphal West in Judicial Misc. Case No.338 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned Judge granted leave in terms of the provisions as contained in Order 37, Rule 3 of C.P.C. to defend the suit on condition of deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs, i.e. 1/2 of the amount covered under the promissory note.

(2.) Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the facts of the case, which gave rise of this application, need to be taken notice of which are as follows: 2.1. A Money Suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,10,000.00. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff happens to be a Government Contractor under different works Departments whereas the defendant is a Special class Contractor under Manipur Police Housing Corpn., Manipur Tribal Development Corpn. and also under the Public Works Department, Manipur. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 came to know each other since, 2010 through one Ninthoujam Shanti Singh, the common friend of both. Thereupon, they did contractual work together. Further case is that on 24.6.2015, defendant No.1 along with said Ningthoujam Shanti Singh came to the house of the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to lend a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs with interest @ 7% p.m. by stating that the defendant No.1 is in need of money for executing contractual work relating to construction of Signal Office, Indian Army Leimakhong and SBI Training Centre at Churachandpur. The plaintiff, by believing the version of the defendant, gave a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs on execution of a Promissory Note on 24.6.2015. At the time of taking money, the defendant No.1 had promised the plaintiff to return the same with interest as soon as it is demanded by the plaintiff. Further case is that the plaintiff approached the defendant on 3.1.2016 and requested him to pay back the money which had been borrowed. But the defendant did not pay any heed though such requests had been made at number of occasions. The defendant went on even extending threat to life of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a Legal Notice on 22.4.2016, to the defendant calling upon him to make repayment of the amount. It has also been pleaded by the plaintiff that plaintiff came to know that the bills submitted for execution of the works at Leimakhong and Churachand-pur are to be cleared which is required to be held up otherwise plaintiff would be put to a lot of trouble.

(3.) Upon institution of the case, summon was issued to the defendant No.1-petitioner. In response of which the defendant appeared. Thereupon, the defendant was served with a summon for judgment on 15.6.2016. Upon it the defendant-petitioner filed a Judicial Misc. Case No.338 of 2016 for granting leave to defend the suit by taking a plea that nothing is due against the plaintiff and that on execution of the work jointly whatever it was payable to the plaintiff, it was paid and thereby it was pleaded that any claim made by the plaintiff that the defendant is owing money to the plaintiff is false and that the Promissory Note happens to be forged and fabricated document.