PRITAM SINGH Vs. TEHAL SINGH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this regular second appeal is to the judgment dated 17.07.2013 passed by Shri Tejwinder Singh, District Judge, Bathinda, vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2012 passed by Ms. Harinder Kaur Sidhu, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff now respondent was decreed, was partly allowed.

(2.) Brief resume of the case is that the plaintiffrespondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,94,800/- i.e Rs. 2,20,000/- being the principal amount and Rs. 74,800/- as interest accrued thereon, on the averments that plaintiff is the General Secretary of Punjab Pradesh Congress committee and is having good relations with Gurmeet Singh son of Gurjant Singh. The defendant influenced the plaintiff and Gurmeet Singh with a false assurance to send Gurmeet Singh to England. On 08.10.2005, defendant along with one Rajinder Singh came to Bathinda and called the plaintiff and Gurmeet Singh in the truck union and disclosed that he is having very good relations with Tehal Singh Buttar. He further disclosed that normally he takes Rs. 6,00,000/- for sending a person to England, but since plaintiff was closed to him, he will charge Rs. 5,00,000/- from them for sending Gurmeet Singh to England. Accordingly, the deal was finalized and the amount was agreed to be paid in two installments of Rs. 2,50,000/- each in advance. The defendant assured the plaintiff that Gurmeet Singh would be sent to England within a period of six months. He also assured the plaintiff that in case of failure, the amount would be refunded along with interest @ 2% per month. It was further alleged that plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- to defendant on 08.10.2005, out of which Rs. 20,000/- was paid in cash and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid through cheque bearing No. 463251 dated 08.10.2005, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, MC Branch, Bathinda, which he got encashed. The remaining amount was agreed to be paid after the issuance of Visa for going to England. However, defendant failed to send Gurmeet Singh to England within the stipulated period of six months. He even failed to get visa from the concerned department. Gurmeet Singh approached the defendant and requested him to refund the money but in vain.

(3.) Upon put to notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiff has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit; that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court; that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct and that the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of plaintiff and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.