TEJPAL Vs. SATPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dtd. 3/11/2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind (hereinafter referred to as - the Lower Appellate Court) and also to the order dtd. 17/2/2023 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon (hereinafter referred to as - the Trial Court), whereby application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case in hand, as culled out from the paper- book, are that respondent/plaintiff filed suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of Rs.32,50,000.00 on the ground that the petitioner/defendant borrowed Rs.12,50,000.00 from the plaintiff on 1/5/2016 and also a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 on 15/1/2017, by making a writing in his own hand in the bahi of respondent/plaintiff. However, later on, the respondent/plaintiff failed to produce the original bahi to show the entries in the hand of defendant/petitioner and therefore, the defendant/petitioner filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has submitted that respondent/plaintiff failed to show the payment of interest from 1/5/2016 to 15/1/2017. The suit has been filed beyond limitation. The plaintiff/ respondent had no cause of action to file the suit qua confirmation of total borrowed amount of Rs.32,50,000.00 on dtd. 15/1/2017. The plaintiff/ respondent has not stated the precise amount of the claim as per Clause (ix) of Sr. No.1 of Part-C of Chapter 1 of High Court Rules and Orders. The plaintiff, by cleverly drafting the plaint, has wrongly taken the plea of confirmation of balance in bahi, whereas no such writing is there in existence. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff/respondent was liable to be rejected.