Farukh Jehanzeb vs Muzaffar Ali Kapra And Anr on 1 March, 2025

Date:

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Farukh Jehanzeb vs Muzaffar Ali Kapra And Anr on 1 March, 2025

Author: Javed Iqbal Wani

Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani

                                                                                       Sr. No 36.
                                                                                       Suppl.
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                     AT SRINAGAR


                                           RFA 91/2024 CM(7580/2024)
              FARUKH JEHANZEB                                             ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

              Through:           Mr. Shuja-ul-haq Advocate.

                                                         Vs.

              MUZAFFAR ALI KAPRA AND ANR                                            ...Respondent(s)

              Through:           Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate.

              CORAM:

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
                                                    ORDER

01.03.2025

1. In the instant appeal, the appellant herein has challenged judgment

and decree dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Court of 4 th Additional District

Judge, Srinagar, (for short, the Trial Court) in case titled as “Muzaffar Ali

Kapra Vs. Zeb Farukhjehan Bhat and Anr.”

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal would reveal that

the respondent 1 herein filed a suit under Order 37 CPC impleading the

appellant herein as defendant 1 and proforma respondent 2 as defendant 2.

The suit was filed on the premise that the plaintiff, respondent 1 herein,

being a businessmen by profession run under the name and style of M/S

M.K. Brothers, having its principle place of business at Khankah-e-Molla,

Srinagar, approached the defendants in the suit for purchase of a piece of

land situated at Awantipora, Pulwama, as the said defendants as partners

were jointly dealing with the business of sale and purchase of immovable

properties and that the defendant 2, proforma respondent 2 herein, showed

Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
him a piece of land at Awantipora, Pulwama, which the plaintiff agreed to

buy whereupon the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 10.00 lacs as token

money thereof towards the defendants, however, despite receiving the said

token money, the defendants did not sell the land in question to the plaintiff

and instead avoided him on one pretext or the other and that subsequently,

the plaintiff came to know that the land shown to him by the defendants

does not belong to them and that the defendants in fact had cheated him and

deceitfully extracted Rs. 10.00 lacs from him, whereupon, the plaintiff

approached the defendants for return of the token money of Rs. 10.00 lacs,

as a consequence whereof, the defendant 1, appellant herein, issued a

cheque bearing No. 000301 dated 17.04.2021 amounting to Rs. 10.00 lacs,

drawn at ICIC Bank, Branch Unit Pampore, which cheque, however, upon

its presentation before his banker, Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Branch Unit

Nowhatta, Srinagar, got bounced and came to be returned back with a memo

containing an endorsement of “insufficient funds” issued by the Bank,

whereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them for

payment of the amount covered by the cheque, but the defendants avoided

him on one pretext or the other and after waiting for some time upon their

assurance, the defendants ultimately failed to pay the amount in question to

the plaintiff, the plaintiff whereafter maintained the suit before the Trial

Court.

3. The Trial Court upon entertaining the suit under the Provisions of

Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure summoned the defendants

whereupon both the defendants appeared and subsequently filed

independent applications seeking leave to defend the suit.

Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document

4. The defendant 1 in the suit, being appellant herein, in the said

application, pleaded that the allegations leveled against him by the plaintiff

have no roots and that the cheque in question was never issued by him in

favour of the plaintiff and that in fact the defendant 2 is his close friend, and

on his request, the cheque in question came to be furnished by him to the

said defendant 2, as the Bank account of the defendant 2 was not in

operation and that Defendant 2 had requested him that he will get the

account operational by some amount by depositing the cheque, while stating

further, he, the defendant 1, is not related to the plaintiff by any means or

business, and that the plaintiff is, in fact, harassing him for his personal

reasons, and consequently on the basis of said pleas sort an unconditional

leave to defend the suit.

5. In the application seeking leave to defend filed by defendant 2,

proforma respondent 2 herein, it came to be stated that the plaintiff has

concealed material facts, as, in fact, the cheque in question stands issued by

defendant 1 and not by him, and that he has been unnecessarily arrayed as

party defendant in the suit by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has completely

misled the court by false assertions, thus, the application needs to be

allowed for allowing the defendant 2 to defend the suit.

6. Before the Trial Court, both the applications filed by the defendants

came to be opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections thereto.

7. The Trial Court, upon considering the applications as also after

hearing the appearing counsel for the parties, opined that since the cheque in

question has been admitted to have been issued by defendant 1, though

claimed to have been issued by him to defendant 2, yet did not deny that it

bears his signature, and consequently, declined the grant of leave to the

Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
defendants in the suit, and in furtherance thereof, decreed the suit in favour

of the plaintiff in terms of the judgment and decree dated 21-08-2024.

8. The appellant herein being defendant 1 before the Trial Court in the

suit has maintained the instant appeal while throwing challenge to the

impugned judgment and decree almost on same and similar grounds which

have had been urged by the appellant before the Trial Court in the

application seeking leave to defend the suit. Besides, the appellant herein

has also contended in the appeal that the defense set up by him before the

Trial Court in the application seeking leave to defend was plausible and

credible, however, same has not been taken into consideration or cognizance

of by the Trial Court without any lawful justification and that the Trial

Court grossly erred while rejecting the application of the appellant for

seeking leave to defend the suit in breach of the law contained in Order 37,

passed the impugned judgment and decree, which suffers from vices of

judicial impropriety and unsoundness.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Before proceeding to advert to the case set up by the appellant

herein, in the instant appeal against the impugned judgment and decree, a

brief reference to the provisions of Order 37 CPC as also law laid down by

the Apex Court in this regard would be advantageous and appropriate,

hereunder.

10. The provisions of Order 37 of the Code deal with Summary

Procedure declaring the Courts and Classes of Suits to which the Provisions

of Order 37 CPC would apply, besides providing that the said provisions

would apply to all Suits on Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange, and

Hundis, even if they are made non-negotiable. The term “Promissory Note”

Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
has been defined in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, so

has also been defined the Bill of Exchange. The term “Cheque” is also

defined under Section 6 of the Act of 1881 as follows: Section 6: “A

Cheque is a Bill of Exchange drawn on a specified Banker and not

expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand.”

11. Order 37, Rule 2 CPC lays down a procedure to be followed in the

summary suit contemplating that after the summons of the suit has been

issued to the defendant, the defendant must appear whereupon the plaintiff

will serve a summon for judgment upon the defendant, while providing

further, that the defendant is not entitled to defend the summary suit unless

he enters appearance as in default, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree

which is executable forthwith.

Sub Rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 37 CPC requires particulars to be

stated in the plaint in a summary suit, whereas Sub Rule (2) prescribes the

form of summons and Sub Rule (3) provides for consequences of non-

appearance of the defendant.

It is consistent view of the courts that the provisions of Order 37,

Rule 2 CPC are enabling in nature, vesting a choice in the plaintiff of taking

the advantage of summary procedure, if he intends to avail of such

procedure.

It has also been laid down by the courts that the object underlying

the Rule 2 of Order 37 CPC is to apprise the defendant that the suit has been

filed under Order 37 CPC as a summary suit, thus necessitating substantial

compliance with the provisions of the Rule.

12. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order 37 CPC has used the

expressions/words “the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to have

Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
been admitted” to mean that the court will accept the statement in the plaint

as correct and on that basis pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

It is the consistent view of the courts that the said words/expressions

appearing in Sub Rule (3) embody an exception to the fundamental and

basic principle of law that a plaintiff must prove the case with which he

comes to court and dispense with such proof in view of special nature of

document/s in Rule 1 of Order 27.

The Apex Court in case titled as “Ramkarandas Radhavallabh v.

Bhagwandas Dwarkadas” reported in A.I.R. 1965 SC 1144, in this regard

has held that the provisions of Sub Rule (3) of Rule (2) Order 27,

contemplates that the Court will accept the statement in the plaint as correct

and on those statements pass such decree as the plaintiff may in law be

entitled to.

13. Rule 3 of Order 37 CPC lays down a procedure for appearance of

defendant and consequence of non-appearance, while as Sub Rule (5) of

Rule 3 of Order 37 CPC confers discretionary power on the court to grant

leave to the defendant to defend the suit, it also provides that such leave

may be granted by court, unconditionally or conditionally, upon such terms

as may appear to be just and appropriate.

The Apex Court in case titled as Milkhiram (India) Private Ltd. and

Ors v. Chamanlal Bros, reported in A.I.R. 1965 SC 1698 has held that such

discretionary power entrusted upon the court must be exercised legally,

reasonably and on sound judicial principles in consonance with principles of

natural justice that form foundations of our legal system.

In UBS AG vs State Bank of Patiala reported in 2006 (5) SCC 416,

the Apex Court has also held that where the defendant appears and raises

Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
tribal issues, leave should be granted and whenever the defense raises a

tribal issue, unconditional leave should be granted otherwise the leave

would be illusory and that the test is to see whether the defense raises a real

issue and not a sham one, in the sense that if the facts alleged by the

defendant are established, there would be a good or even plausible defense

on those facts.

In case titled as “Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers Vs. M/S

Basic Equipment Corporation” reported in 1976 for SCC 687, the Apex

Court has also held that the High Court should not interfere with the

discretionary order passed by the Trial Court in the matter of grant of leave

by entering into questions of fact, however, it is only in cases where the

defense is patently dishonest or so unreasonable that it could not reasonably

be expected to succeed, that exercise of discretion by the Trial Court to

grant leave unconditionally may be questioned and interfered with.

It has been further held by the Apex Court in case titled as M/S Fixity

Packaging Indus. P. Ltd. VS. Udyen Jain (HUF), reported in 2009-08 SCC

761, that the leave to defend should not be granted to the defendant on the

ground of sympathy or mercy if he has no defense.

14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to

the case in hand, it has not been disputed by the defendant 1, appellant

herein, that the cheque stands issued by him and that same bears his

signatures. It has also not been disputed by the defendant 1, appellant

herein, that the name of the plaintiff entered in the cheque has been either

wrongfully, fraudulently, or by deceitful means. Instead what is being

denied by defendant 1, appellant herein, is that the cheque in fact stands

Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
provided by him to defendant 2, proforma respondent herein, being his close

friend in connection with the operation of his bank accounts.

15. Perusal of the record available on the file tends to show that the

plaintiff, respondent 1, herein specifically pleaded in the suit that the cheque

stands issued to him by the defendant 1, appellant herein, in order to pay

back him the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs paid to the defendants in connection

with the purchase of the piece of land at Awantipora after the defendants

failed to provide him the piece of land on sale. There has been no evidence

much less a documentary one placed on record by the defendants including

appellant herein in the application seeking leave to defend the suit except a

vague plea that the cheque in question in fact stands issued by him, the

defendant 1, appellant herein, to defendant 2, proforma respondent 2 herein.

No corroborative material has been placed on record with the application

seeking leave to defend by the defendant 1, appellant herein, to support such

plea. Thus, in presence of the aforesaid position, obtaining in the matter, the

Trial Court cannot be said to have committed any fault, error, or perversity

in declining leave to defend the suit to the defendant 1, appellant herein, and

consequently, to pass decree in favor of the plaintiff, respondent 1 herein, in

terms of the provisions of Order 37 CPC, in terms whereof if leave to

defend is declined, the passing of decree in favor of the plaintiff becomes

indispensable, and the plaintiff becomes entitled to such decree thereto. A

reference in this regard to the judgment of Apex Court passed in case titled

M/S V.K. Enterprises and Anr Vs. Shiva Steel, reported in 2019 SCC 256.

16. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and analyzed

herein above, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

does not call for any interference.

Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document

17. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

18. The amount stated to have been deposited before this court by the

appellant herein is directed to be returned back to the appellant along with

interest.

(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE

SRINAGAR
01.03.2025
Junaid

Whether the order is reportable? Yes.

                                Whether the order is speaking?           Yes.




Junaid Ayoub
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
document
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

spot_imgspot_img

Popular

More like this
Related