Ranbir Singh v. Sajanti Ram

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 'gsr'/pp..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12th September, 2018. + RSA 175/2017 & CM No.24021/2017 (for stay) RANBIR SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. S.K. Jain, Adv. Versus SAJANTI RAM ..... Respondent Through: Mr. C.M. Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment [dated 18th February, 2017 in RCA No.196/2016 (Unique ID No.02402C0034422016) of the Court of Additional District Judge, Shahdara] allowing the First Appeal filed by the respondent / plaintiff against the judgment and decree [dated 25th April, 2016 in Civil Suit No.275/2010 (Unique ID No.02403C0221442010) of the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Shahdara] of dismissal of suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff against the appellant / defendant for recovery of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest and costs. Resultantly, vide the impugned judgment, a decree has been passed in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and against the appellant / defendant for recovery of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest. 2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 12th July, 2017, when, without expressing satisfaction that the appeal entails a substantial question of law and without framing a substantial question of law, notice of the appeal was issued and subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the decretal amount in this Court, execution stayed. Vide subsequent order dated 3rd November, 2017, the trial court record was requisitioned. 3. The counsel for the appellant / defendant and the counsel for the respondent / plaintiff have been heard and the Suit Court record requisitioned perused. 4. On enquiry from the counsel for the appellant / defendant as to what is the substantial question of law that arises in this appeal, the counsel for the appellant / defendant states that the First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent / plaintiff and passed a decree in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and against the appellant / defendant referring to, in para 13 of the impugned judgment, Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and which is but a presumption of the cheque having been given in discharge of antecedent liability. It is argued that on the basis of the said presumption alone, the suit of the respondent / plaintiff against the appellant / defendant for recovery of money on the basis of a cheque for the suit amount, could not have been decreed. 5. I have enquired from the counsel for the appellant / defendant, what evidence did the appellant / defendant lead to rebut the presumption. 6. The counsel for the appellant / defendant states (i) that the respondent / plaintiff instituted the suit pleading having advanced a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- for a period of six months to the appellant / defendant and further pleading that the appellant / defendant in repayment of the loan had issued a post dated cheque for Rs.1,25,000/- and which cheque was dishonoured; (ii) that the appellant / defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying any financial transaction with the respondent / plaintiff and pleading that one Chhote Lal, who is a relative of the respondent / plaintiff, had taken the said blank cheque from the appellant / defendant as a security and the said Chhote Lal had subsequently informed the appellant / defendant that he had lost the said cheque; (iii) that the appellant / defendant was not aware as to how the said cheque fell into the hands of respondent / plaintiff; (iv) that in the course of the evidence, it was admitted by the respondent / plaintiff that Chhote Lal is the brother of the brother of the wife of the respondent / plaintiff; (v) that the respondent / plaintiff claimed that he was possessed of the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- loaned to the appellant / defendant, owing to having collected a "Committee" operated by one Om Prakash; (vi) that the respondent / plaintiff further admitted that he ha