Full Text
24th January, 2018 LALIT TYAGI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rahul Mohod, Advocate with Mr. Manoj Sonkar, Advocate.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.174/2018 (exemption)
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.173/2018 (for condonation of delay)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.8/2018 and C.M. No.172/2018 (stay)
3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment/order of the Trial 2018:DHC:602 Court dated 16.8.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed under Order XXXVII CPC by the respondent/plaintiff as the appellant/defendant had failed to comply with the earlier order dated 15.7.2017 granting leave to defend on deposit of Rs.[1] lakh with respect to the suit filed for a sum of Rs.[8] lacs.
4. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of Rs.[8] lacs on the basis of the receipt dated 8.11.2015 and cheque dated 9.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.[8] lacs issued by the appellant/defendant. There is no dispute that the cheque bears the signatures of the appellant/defendant and it is also not in dispute that the receipt also bears the signatures of the appellant/defendant. Appellant/defendant contended that the respondent/plaintiff had manipulated the cheque of Rs.30,000/- into a figure of Rs. 8 lacs and signatures on the receipt were taken on a blank document, however, in my opinion, inspite of such defences being clearly moonshine, yet the trial court was liberal in terms of its order dated 15.7.2017 by asking the appellant/defendant only to deposit a sum of Rs.[1] lakh out of the suit amount of Rs.[8] lacs. Appellant/defendant however even did not deposit this amount of Rs.[1] lakh and consequently by the impugned order dated 16.8.2017 for non-compliance of the term for granting leaving to defend, suit has accordingly been decreed.
5. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the appeal inasmuch as surely a condition imposed of deposit of only Rs.[1] lakh for the suit amount of Rs.[8] lacs secured by means of cheque and receipt cannot be said to be an unreasonable condition.
6. Dismissed.
JANUARY 24, 2018 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J Ne