$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 2010/2023, CM APPL. 63240/2023, CM APPL. 63241/2023

& CM APPL. 63242/2023

PAWAN VERMA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Neeraj Yadav and Mr. Deepak

Yadav, Advocates

versus

SARDAR MANMOHAN SINGH

..... Respondent

Through:

None

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

CM APPL. 63240/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

CM(M) 2010/2023, CM APPL. 63241/2023 & CM APPL. 63242/2023

1.

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by Additional District Judge-02,

North, Rohini Court, Delhi in CS No. 370/2021, titled as Sardar

Manmohan Singh v. Pawan Cargo Carriers (‘Trial Court’) whereby the

Trial Court has granted conditional leave to defend to the Petitioner herein.

Digitally Signed

By:MAMTA RANI

Signing Date:05.01.2024

16:59:18

Signature Not Verified

2.

The Trial Court by its impugned order has allowed the Petitioner’s

application filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for leave to defend subject to the condition of

deposit for an amount of Rs 10,00,000/- by way of an FDR in the name of

the concerned Court.

2.1.The Petitioner is the original defendant no. 2 and the Respondent is

the original plaintiff before the Trial Court. Defendant no. 1 is the

proprietorship firm of the Petitioner herein. The civil suit has been filed

under Order XXXVII CPC seeking a recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with

pendent-lite and future interest.

2.2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per

their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3.

Brief facts leading to filing of present petition are as under:

3.1.The suit arises out of the claim of the plaintiff with respect to his

financial transactions with defendant no. 2 for an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/-.

It is stated in the plaint that as an acknowledgment of the financial dealings,

defendant no. 2 executed a handwritten undertaking dated 22.02.2019 and

undertook to pay an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/-.

3.2.It is stated in the plaint that an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- stands

recovered by virtue of the property transfer transaction agreed between the

parties; however, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- remains outstanding. It is

stated that to repay the said outstanding amount; defendant no. 2 issued two

(2) cheques for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each in favour of the plaintiff.

However, the said two (2) cheques were dishonoured on presentation. It is

stated that the plaintiff has issued a legal demand notice under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘Act of 1881’) and initiated

Digitally Signed

By:MAMTA RANI

Signing Date:05.01.2024

16:59:18

Signature Not Verified

complaint proceedings being Criminal Complaint Case bearing no.

2092/2021 against defendant no. 2.

3.3.It is stated that since the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- remains unpaid,

the plaintiff, by way of the present suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC

sought recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with pendent-lite and future

interest.

4.

After receipt of summons for judgment, defendant no. 2 filed the

application for leave to defend. In his defence, defendant no. 2 has denied

having any financial transactions for an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- with the

plaintiff. He has denied executing any handwritten undertaking dated

22.02.2019 in favour of the plaintiff. Instead, he has averred that plaintiff

(and his brother) obtained defendant’s signatures on blank papers and two

(2) blank cheques as a security for the commission payable to plaintiff (and

his brother) from the sale of the commercial shop owned by the defendant

no. 2. It is stated that the signatures on the blank papers and the cheques

were made in good faith, however, the plaintiff has misused the same for

filing