TULA RAM Vs. SUBHASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this revision petition to assail the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court while dismissing his application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

(3.) On 11/3/2015, the plaintiff (petitioner) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.20,40,000.00 against Sh. Subhash. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant is a property broker and he contacted the plaintiff with his father Sh. Ami Lal Makkar on 16/2/2011 and, requested the plaintiff to advance the money, which was accepted by the plaintiff and Rs.15,00,000.00 was paid to the defendant, who in order to repay the loan in part has issued a post-dated cheque of Rs.15,00,000.00 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Railway Road, Hisar, payable on 14/2/2015. However, when the plaintiff presented the said cheque in his bank, the same was 'dishonoured'. A notice was issued under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, however, on the assurance given by the defendant, the plaintiff did not file a complaint. However, as per the present scenario even after a lapse of more than 2 years, the payment has not been made. The defendant while filing the written statement asserted that the suit is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties as the dispute, if any, exists between the plaintiff and Sh. Sandeep son of Sh. Sukhbir and Sh. Pardeep son of Sh. Ami Lal Makkar (brother of the defendant). It was alleged that the brother of the defendant namely Sh. Pardeep and his friend Sh. Sandeep borrowed Rs.25,00,000.00, from the plaintiff and Sh. Roshan Lal. The defendant handed over two cheques to the plaintiff and Sh. Roshan Lal against security, which have been dishonoured.