The court can mold the reliefs and grant different reliefs than as prayed in the plaint, based on the facts emerged on record.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

CM No. 27027/2017 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

RFA No. 673/2017 and CM No. 27026/2017 (Stay)

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 24.12.2016 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of the vehicle Ford Ikon car (hereinafter referred to as “the car”) with damages, for a sum of Rs. 6,09,041/- being the value of the car along with damages of Rs. 3,70,000/- totaling to Rs. 9,79,041/- along with interest at 18% per annum. Trial court by its judgment instead of ordering return back of the car as prayed in the plaint, instead has granted recovery of the price of the car and damages.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff by the suit pleaded that the appellant/defendant who was a practicing Advocate was appointed by the respondent/ plaintiff as its Advocate. Respondent/plaintiff had purchased the car on 25.4.2001 from M/s. NPF Motors Pvt. Ltd. Okhla Industrial Estates, New Delhi after making a payment of Rs. 6,09,041/- and the respondent/plaintiff had been duly paying the EMIs. Respondent/ plaintiff was also paying insurance premium on the vehicle. Since the appellant/defendant was retained as a legal advisor of the respondent/plaintiff/company and had been discharging its duty at that capacity, in September 2001 appellant/defendant when approached the respondent/plaintiff to provide him the car for few days as the appellant/defendant’s car was out of order, his request was agreed to. Appellant/defendant after few days approached the respondent/plaintiff that he has forgotten the car keys inside the car and therefore the duplicate keys be provided and which were according given by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant. Appellant/defendant since in spite of requests refused to return the car, therefore the subject suit came to be filed. There were also some disputes existing between the parties with respect to forcible taking over of the vehicle and the claim of the appellant/defendant of having purchased the car from the respondent/plaintiff and which resulted in certain criminal cases between the parties.

3. Appellant/defendant filed the written statement and pleaded that the suit was time barred and that it was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the car was in fact purchased by the appellant/defendant to help the respondent/plaintiff which was in financial difficulties. Appellant/defendant pleaded that on 9.10.2001 he paid a sum of Rs. 5,75,000/- to the MD of the respondent/plaintiff company Sh. Rajesh Duggal and who in turn delivered the car in question to the appellant/defendant with the original documents and with the keys of the same. Appellant/defendant pleaded to have purchased the car in terms of two documents being the acknowledgment receipt and undertaking dated 9.10.2001 and which documents as per the respondent/plaintiff were forged and fabricated documents.

4. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed the following issues:-

“(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as filed on account of registration of FIR? OPD

(2) Whether the plaintiff is registered owner of the car throughout and till filing of the case? If so, its effect? OPP

(3) Whether the defendant is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the car in suit on the basis of forged documents i.e. acknowledgment dated 09.10.2001 and undertaking dated 09.10.2001? OPP

(4) To what amount of misuse charges and damages, if any, plaintiff is entitled from the defendant? OPP

(5) Relief.”

5. Respondent/plaintiff through its Director Sh. Rajesh Duggal filed his affidavit by way of evidence and proved various documents. This is referred to in paras 32, 33 and