RAMESH SHARMA Vs. MATHURESH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the instant case in relation to a transaction, which was in connection with a piece of land, the appellant has paid in fact Rs. 24 Lacs and out of that amount Rs. 5 Lacs were received in cash by the respondent and regarding rest of Rs. 19 lacs, cheques were issued by the respondent-plaintiff and those were not encashed. Therefore, a complaint was filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also contended that the land in this case is of a Scheduled Caste person and it was understanding between the plaintiff and the appellant that the registration of the land will be got done in favour of a person suggested by the appellant, but subsequently, the plaintiff turned around for the reason that there was hike in the price of land in question. It is submitted that the trial court has decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 C. P. C. considering the admission of the appellant in relation to Rs. 5 Lacs. It is also contended that in fact the appellant never admitted this aspect of the matter that he received total amount of Rs. 24 Lacs. The admission was only in relation to Rs. 5 Lacs as the appellant himself has paid Rs. 24 Lacs. It is contended that the court has not properly appreciated the admission made. It is also contended that the matter involved in the suit was required to be decided by framing a proper issue and after providing proper opportunity to lead evidence.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in relation to the cheque, the complaint filed by the appellant has already been dismissed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that cheques were given in connection with this transaction cannot be believed. The learned counsel also read over the impugned judgment to show that the admission was clear. Therefore, the court has correctly decreed the suit.

(3.) AFTER having considered the submissions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to call for the record and in the meanwhile direct the appellant to furnish solvent security before the trial court to its satisfaction with an undertaking to the effect that in case the appeal fails then the entire amount shall be paid within two months from the date of decision of the appeal.