FARUKH JEHANZEB Vs. MUZAFFAR ALI KAPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant appeal, the appellant herein has challenged judgment and decree dtd. 21/8/2024 passed by the Court of 4 th Additional District Judge, Srinagar, (for short, the Trial Court) in case titled as "Muzaffar Ali Kapra Vs. Zeb Farukhjehan Bhat and Anr."

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal would reveal that the respondent 1 herein filed a suit under Order 37 CPC impleading the appellant herein as defendant 1 and proforma respondent 2 as defendant 2. The suit was filed on the premise that the plaintiff, respondent 1 herein, being a businessmen by profession run under the name and style of M/S M.K. Brothers, having its principle place of business at Khankah-e-Molla, Srinagar, approached the defendants in the suit for purchase of a piece of land situated at Awantipora, Pulwama, as the said defendants as partners were jointly dealing with the business of sale and purchase of immovable properties and that the defendant 2, proforma respondent 2 herein, showed him a piece of land at Awantipora, Pulwama, which the plaintiff agreed to buy whereupon the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.10.00 lacs as token money thereof towards the defendants, however, despite receiving the said token money, the defendants did not sell the land in question to the plaintiff and instead avoided him on one pretext or the other and that subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the land shown to him by the defendants does not belong to them and that the defendants in fact had cheated him and deceitfully extracted Rs.10.00 lacs from him, whereupon, the plaintiff approached the defendants for return of the token money of Rs.10.00 lacs, as a consequence whereof, the defendant 1, appellant herein, issued a cheque bearing No. 000301 dtd. 17/4/2021 amounting to Rs.10.00 lacs, drawn at ICIC Bank, Branch Unit Pampore, which cheque, however, upon its presentation before his banker, Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Branch Unit Nowhatta, Srinagar, got bounced and came to be returned back with a memo containing an endorsement of "insufficient funds" issued by the Bank, whereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them for payment of the amount covered by the cheque, but the defendants avoided him on one pretext or the other and after waiting for some time upon their assurance, the defendants ultimately failed to pay the amount in question to the plaintiff, the plaintiff whereafter maintained the suit before the Trial Court.

(3.) The Trial Court upon entertaining the suit under the Provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure summoned the defendants whereupon both the defendants appeared and subsequently filed independent applications seeking leave to defend the suit.