RAMESH KUMAR BANSAL Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR KALYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, whereby, suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest was dismissed by the Court of first Instance vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.2009. The appeal filed by appellant was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panckula vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2011.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.

(3.) Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that the defendant approached the plaintiff in August, 2000 and asked him to purchase his Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. HR-44- D-0018 for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-. On 7.9.2000, the defendant visited the house of the plaintiff and received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff against receipt of the same date. The said receipt was duly attested by two witnesses, namely, Manohar Lal and Jagtar Singh. Later on, the plaintiff informed the defendant that there was some defect in the car and with the plea of getting the engine repaired, the defendant took the car from the plaintiff with the assurance to return the same in the evening. The balance payment of Rs. 20,000/- was to be made after removal of the defect in the engine. However, when the defendant did not turn up and the plaintiff tried to take up the matter with the defendant, but he was not available. Father of the defendant informed the plaintiff that he would inform the defendant on his return and the matter continued for some days. Later on, the plaintiff approached CIA Staff, Panchkula and it was informed to him that the car in question was a stolen vehicle and the earlier registration number of the car was CH-03-C-0938. The plaintiff visited the house of registered owner of the car in question and it was found that no person with the name of Rajesh Kumar was available at the given address. The plaintiff continued to enquire about the defendant, but the father of the defendant again assured that the car was purchased by the defendant for consideration. However, neither the money nor the car was returned to the plaintiff and a complaint was filed and on the basis of the same, FIR No. 38 was registered on 15.4.2001 at Police Station, Sector 19, Panchkula. However, when money was not returned, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking refund of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest.