LAWS(P&H)-2023-11-42

KUNAL SHARMA Vs. HERO FINCORP LTD.

Decided On November 28, 2023
Kunal Sharma Appellant
V/S
Hero Fincorp Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dtd. 1/2/2019, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana vide which the application filed by respondent No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint was allowed and the order dtd. 3/5/2019, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the said order was dismissed.

(2.) The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that the present petitioner instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents-defendants to the effect that the deeds of guarantee dtd. 30/1/2016, 12/2/2016 and 10/3/2016 purportedly executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent-defendant No.1 for Rs.33,00,000.00, Rs.11,28,000.00 and Rs.58,23,000.00 respectively were the result of impersonation, fraud and cheating committed by the respondents-defendants No.1 to 6. A decree of mandatory injunction directing the respondent-defendant No.1 to return the original sale deed pertaining to portion measuring 100 square yards out of the total property bearing House bearing MC No.704/8-B Old, No.B-XX-2960 (new), situated at Taraf Karabara, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed property') to the petitioner-plaintiff was also sought. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought.

(3.) The case set up was that some financial assistance had been availed by respondents-defendants No.2 to 6 from respondent-defendant No.1 and as a security, they had executed guarantee deeds referred to above in favour of respondent-defendant No.1 which were purportedly executed by the petitioner-plaintiff but were infact forged and fabricated and were the result of a fraud. Detailed averments with regard to the strained relations between the parties were made in the plaint. It would be relevant to note here that the petitioner Kunal Sharma is the son of respondent No.5 Vijay Sharma and respondent No.4 Smt. Vandana Sharma and brother of respondent No.3 Nitin Sharma. Respondent No.6 is the wife of respondent No.3 and sister-in-law (brother's wife) of the petitioner. It was described how right since the marriage of the petitioner, the respondents-defendants No.2 to 6 had ill-treated him and his wife. Details of action initiated by him against his family members were also given and reference was made to FIR No.79 dtd. 20/3/2019, registered under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana (Annexure P-4).