TEJINDER KAUR Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM -2138 -C -2013

(2.) AS the main case itself has been taken up for disposal, the application stands dismissed as infructuous.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that Ex. D1, a receipt produced by the defendant would go to establish that a sum of Rs. 80,000/ - was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the question of receipt of Rs. 2 lacs as adumbrated in the pronote Ex. P1 and receipt Ex. P2 allegedly executed on 25.10.2005, does not arise for consideration. The case of the plaintiff is completely falsified by the receipt passed on by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant under Ex. D1, it is further submitted. The Courts below have not properly evaluated the impact of receipt Ex. D1 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant.