$~A-37

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RFA(COMM) 205/2023 & C.M.Nos.47557-47559/2023

MRS RUHIALIA

..... APPELLANT

Through:

Mr.Ankur Gupta with Mr.B.Khan and

Ms.Taniya Tejan, Advocates.

versus

SHRI SUNIL GUPTA

..... RESPONDENT

Through:

None

%

Date of Decision: 19^thSeptember, 2023

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the

order dated 23^rdDecember, 2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Tis

Hazari Court, Delhi in CS (COMM) No.3777/2021, wherein the application

for leave to defend filed by the appellant was dismissed and the suit was

decreed for an amount of Rs.7,10,062/- against the appellant.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Trial Court failed to

give an opportunity to the appellant to prove her case on merits. According

to him, various triable issues like furnishing of blank security cheques,

transactions of Rs.1,89,431/- as well as Rs.6,40,000/- not being admitted and

full purchase price having been paid were raised by the appellant in the

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT

SINGH RAWAT

Signing Date:20.09.2023

18:39:49

Signature Not Verified

leave to defend application. He contends that without allowing the parties to

lead evidence, the said disputes could not have been decided.

3.

In our view, the Trial Court has correctly held that the appellant had

not placed any document on record from which it could be ascertained that

there was any compelling circumstance for the appellant to purchase goods

from the respondent alone and that she had agreed to furnish a security in

the form of blank signed cheques.

4.

A perusal of the paper book also reveals that the appellant had herself

not only confirmed the debit balance of Rs.17,80,702/- in her ledger account

maintained by the respondent but had provided details of her income tax

Permanent Account Number in furtherance of that (page 118 of the Trial

Court record). The said ledger account clearly reflects the disputed

transactions i.e. supply of goods for INR 1,89,431/- on 12^thJune, 2018 and

the supply of goods for INR 6,40,000/- to Printech Printers on 30^thMarch,

2019. Since both these entries have been duly acknowledged by the

appellant in the ‘Confirmation of Accounts’, this Court is of the view that no

triable issues arise.

5.

This Court is further of the view that the appellant is neither a famous

sportperson nor a filmstar that would entitle her to sign autographs on blank

documents leave alone cheques. The appellant is a literate person who is

presumed in law to understand the significance and legal import of signed

cheques.

Attention

has

not

been

drawn

of

this

Court

to

any

contemporaneous correspondence which would reflect that the appellant had

ever protested to the deposit of the cheques on the ground that they were

security cheques which were not meant to be encashed.

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT

SINGH RAWAT

Signing Date:20.09.2023

18:39:49

Signature Not Verified

6.

Consequently, this Court is of the view that the defence put forward

by the appellant in the leave to defend application is false and the Trial

Court has rightly decreed the suit.

7.

Accordingly, the present appeal along with pending applications is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

MANMOHAN, J

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

SEPTEMBER 19, 2023

KA

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT

SINGH RAWAT

Signing Date:20.09.2023

18:39:49

Signature Not Verified