ADARSH RANI BEDI Vs. SHASHI PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 29/6/2022, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., vide which, the appeal filed by the present appellant (defendant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit seeking recovery of Rs.9,80,000.00 (Rupees Nine Lacs and Eighty Thousand only) along with interest @10% per annum. It was pleaded that the defendant is running a School in the name and style of Kangra Valley Senior Secondary School, Sheela Chowk, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The parties have cordial relations like family members. The defendant contacted the plaintiff in August 2008 and told him that she required an amount of Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lacs only) for the school. She promised to return the amount after one year. The plaintiff agreed to this proposal and issued the two cheques of Rs.2,50,000.00 (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand) each. He also paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lacs) in cash. The defendant issued a post-dated cheque dtd. 2/9/2009 for Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lacs) in favour of the plaintiff drawn on State Bank of India, Dharamshala Branch. The defendant encashed the cheques issued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented the said cheque after 2/9/2009, but the said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks 'Refer to Drawer'. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the amount. He also served a legal notice upon the defendant for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The notice was duly served upon the defendant. However, the defendant did not pay the amount; hence, the suit was filed to seek recovery of the amount.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing a written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, cause of action and jurisdiction, the plaintiff being estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit, the plaintiff having suppressed material facts from the Court, the suit being barred by limitation and the suit having not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the school is run by the Kangra Valley Public Education Society and she is only Secretary of the Society. One President and other Members of the Society runs the school. The defendant obtained Rs.70,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Thousand only), from the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained a blank cheque against the security with the promise to return the same after the payment of Rs.70,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Thousand only). The defendant returned Rs.70,000.00 in three instalments of Rs.15,054.00 on 6/10/2008, Rs.28,084.00 on 5/12/2008 and Rs.28,084.00 on 9/1/2009. The plaintiff did not return the cheque and misused the same. The defendant approached the plaintiff after receiving the notice and enquired from him about the misuse of the cheque. The plaintiff told her that he had mistakenly presented the cheques and issued a legal notice. In fact, one Veena Sharma had taken Rs.7,00,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lacs) from the plaintiff and he wrongly presented the cheque of the defendant instead of the cheque of Veena Sharma. He told the defendant that he had torn the cheque and there was no need to worry. The defendant believed the representation made by the plaintiff. The suit was filed without any basis; hence, it was prayed that the same be dismissed.