SYED MOOSA EMAMI Vs. SUNIL KUMAR
LAWS(DLH)-1982-8-30
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on August 23,1982

SYED MOOSA EMAMI Appellant
VERSUS
SUNIL KUMAR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

P RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VS. N HEMALATHA DEVI [LAWS(APH)-2000-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
Iram Feroz of Bombay VS. Ayaz Gadhiya of Bombay [LAWS(BOM)-2005-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
LALCHAND JAIN VS. GHEESI [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
RANA INDERJIT SINGH VS. KEMBIOTIC LABORATORIES [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-294] [REFERRED TO]
B.T.M EXPORTS LTD. VS. ADHUNIK CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-222] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI POWER SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. (DT. LTD.) VS. HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCTS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-357] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR GAUBA VS. ADARSH KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-101] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Yogeshwar Dayal - (1.)This revision is directed against an order of trial court dt. 5.12.81 whereby the learned trial Court accepted an application filed on behalf the respondents for leave to appear and contest the suit purporting to have been filed under the provisions of Order 37 of the C.P.C.
(2.)The plaintiff had filed a suit purporting to be under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code for the recovery of Rs. 10,000.00 allegedly on the basis of two cheques.
(3.)The case of the plaintiff is that he is permanent resident of Iran and has come to India for treatment of his eyes. During the stay in Delhi, the planintiff came into contact with deft. No 2 and became his close friend. It was stated in the plaint that deft. No. 1 is the son of deft. No. 2. It was further stated that deft No. I requested the plaintiff to give some friendly loan as he has run short of some money in transaction of business. It was further averred that the plaintiff in good faith and being a friend of deft. Nos. 1 and 2 consented to give money as required by deft No. 1. It was also stated that deft. No. 2 stood surety for refund of the said amount and stood guarantor on behalf of deft. No. 1. The plaintiff as such gave a friendly loan of Rs. 4.000.00 by cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Moti Nagar. It was further averred that the plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs. 6,000.00 vide cheque dt. 17.4.80. Thus the plaintiff gave a total loan of Rs. 10,000.00. Deft. No. 1 was sued as a principal debtor and deft. No. 2 was sued as a guarantor. It was further stated that inspite of notice of demand the amount has not been returned.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.