Sh. Mahavir Gupta vs Sh. Shobha Ram Saran on 28 September, 2016

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. Appl. No. 35925/2016 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.

RSA No. 290/2016 and C.M. Appl. No.35924/2016 (for stay under Section
151 CPC)

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the concurrent Judgments of the courts

below; of the Trial Court dated 6.6.2016 and the First Appellate Court dated

23.7.2016; by which the leave to defend application filed by the

RSA No. 290/2016 Page 1 of 7
appellant/defendant in a suit for recovery of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest and

costs was dismissed. The suit under Order XXXVII CPC was filed by pleading

grant of a loan by respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant of an amount

of Rs.1,50,000/- by cheque. The appellant/defendant for repayment issued

cheque no. 000046 dated 5.5.2015 of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff

which was dishonoured and therefore the subject suit came to be filed under

Order XXXVII CPC on the basis of the dishonoured cheque along with interest.

I note that while dismissing the leave to defendant application of the

appellant/defendant, the courts below have decreed the suit not for

Rs.2,10,000/- but only for Rs.1,50,000/- with pendente lite and future interest at

the rate of 9% per annum, i.e pre-suit interest was not granted on the amount of

Rs.1,50,000 on account of no documents being filed to prove the entitlement to

pre-suit interest.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*