RAJ BALA TAYAL Vs. SULENDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one is present on behalf of the Respondent despite the fact that he had been served. On 5.8.2010 this Court in order to explore the possibility of settlement directed the parties to remain present but the Respondent did not turn up. The matter was adjourned to 7.10.2010 on which date also the Respondent was not present and in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned to 16.12.2010 and today when the matter was taken up for hearing again no one is present on behalf of the Respondent, leaving the Court with no other option but to proceed with the matter. The grievance of the Petitioner stems from the order dated 2.2.2010 by which his amendment to the written statement has been declined.

(2.) The Petitioner is facing recovery proceedings of an amount of Rs. 50,000/-on account of an alleged loan taken by her late husband from the Respondent. The plea of the Respondent was that loan was advanced to M/s Tayal Electricals of which she was shown to be the proprietor by her husband who could not carry out any business because of his employment in government service. She thus admitted in the written statement that even though there were dealings with the Respondent yet on subsequent inquiry it had been revealed to her that amount of Rs. 47,000/-has infact been paid to the Respondent and to substantiate such a contention and show her bona fides, an application for amendment was being moved by which some material has been shown to the Court regarding settlement of accounts between the husband of the Petitioner and the Respondent.

(3.) As observed earlier, no one is present on behalf of the Respondent to controvert the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.