2017 (12) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.43488/2017 (stay) & 43490/2017 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC) 3. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the Trial Court dated 5.12.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 6,28,889.34/- along with interest 4. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of Rs. 6,28,889.34/- along with interest pleading that respondent/plaintiff was in the business of metal scrap, waste paper etc under the name and style of Krishna Trading Co. It was pleaded that on 15.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly written by Sh. Brij Bhushan in his hands bearing his own signatures. The subject cheques were given to Sh. Brij Bhushan as security which were to be returned after settlement but Sh. Brij Bhushan failed to do so and it is pleaded in the leave to defend application that it appears said Sh. Brij Bhushan had handed over the subject cheques to the respondent/plaintiff who has misused them and filed the subject suit. 6. I may note that in the impugned judgment trial court has arrived at a wrong conclusion of fact that the letters of Sh. Brij Bhushan were not filed by the appellant/defendant with his leave to defend application, though appellant/defendant had, however, the same would have no bearing to the other reasoning and conclusions gi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct that the cheques were wrongly given by Sh. Brij Bhushan to the respondent/plaintiff. 7. I have further put a query to the counsel for the appellant/defendant that if assuming there were disputes between the appellant/defendant and Sh. Brij Bhushan and which were later on sorted, and that on such agreement/settlement Sh. Brij Bhushan had to return the cheques to the appellant/defendant then why the appellant/defendant at the time of the alleged compromise with Sh. Brij Bhushan way back in the January, 2011 did not take back the cheques and thereafter till the subject suit was filed in the year 2014 and even till the leave to defend application was disposed of on 5.12.2016, with the fact that no legal action whatsoever was initiated by ....