Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 479 (DEL)

Ajit Singh v. Ramesh Vohra

2005-04-25

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2005
JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. By means of IA. No. 6264/02, defendant No.2 prays for rejection of the plaint alleging that on the pleadings of the plaintiff, no cause of action has been shown against defendant No.2. 2. Under Clause (a) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a plaint is liable to be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. Learned counsel for the plaintiff very fairly states that indeed, a plaint which discloses no cause of action against a defendant has to be rejected qua the said defendant. 3. Suit claims a money decree against the defendants. 4. Vide para 1 of the plaint, plaintiff states that defendant No.1 placed an order on him for supply of600 pieces of Polyester Embroidered Odhanies. Price agreed per piece was US $ 14.5 (FOB), as stated in para 2 of the plaint. It is averred in para 3 of the plaint that plaintiff supplied the goods, delivery whereof was taken by defendant No. 1. Amount payable for the supply was US $ 9541. 5. In para 5 ofthe plaint, it is stated that defendant No.1 came to India in the month of February, 1997 and needed some funds. Plaintiff advanced Rs. 72,000 by cheque which was encashed by defendant No. 1. 6. In para 6 of the plaint, it is stated that defendant No.2 is the nephew of defendant No.1 and both have been coming to the plaintiff from time to time. It is averred that defendant No.1 needed further money and intimated the plaintiff that defendant No.2 would come to collect money on his behalf and accordingly, plaintiff states that he advanced further loans to defendant No. 1. It is averred that since defendant No.2 was authorized by defendant No.1, said defendant executed the receipts. 7. In para 7 of the plaint, it is stated that defendant No.1 had admitted in writing to repay all dues to the plaintiff. It is further averred in the plaint that it was agreed between the parties that the amount would be repaid. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that assertion in para 7 in the plaint 'that it was also agreed between the parties' means both defendants and this averment is sufficient to fasten liability on defendant No.2. 9. It is further averred in the plaint that it was agreed between the parties that the amount would be repaid. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that assertion in para 7 in the plaint 'that it was also agreed between the parties' means both defendants and this averment is sufficient to fasten liability on defendant No.2. 9. It is true that while considering whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not, all pleadings in the plaint have to be treated to be correct and defence has not to be looked into, but that would not mean that the plaint has to be read not meaningfully. 10. A reading of the averments made in paras 1 to 7 of the plaint show that it is the positive case of the plaintiff that it was defendant No.1 alone who was to pay the amounts to the plaintiff and that defendant No.2, being nephew of defendant No.1, was authorized on his behalf to acknowledge receipt of the amount after receiving the same. Relevant pleadings in paras 5 and 6 of the plaint may be reproduced, the same are as under: "5. Plaintiff says that defendant No. 1 has been coming to India frequently. He is an Indian citizen. Plaintiff submits that defendant No 1 was in India in the month of February, 1997. On his request an amount of Rs. 72,000 was advanced to him by means of our cheque No. 705287 dt. 17.2.97 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Defendant No.1 got the same encashed and used the same for his purpose. 6. Defendant No.2 is a nephew of defendant No. 1. Both have been coming to the plaintiff from time to time. Defendant No.1 was further in need of money in March/April, 1997. He had already intimated to the plaintiff that defendant No.2 would come to collect money on his behalf and the same should be given to him. Accordingly, defendant No.1 was advanced further a loan of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) on 14.3.1997 and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs only) on 26.4.97. In these circumstances, a total loan amount as advanced to defendant No.1 was to the tune of Rs. 8,72,000 (Rupees eight lakhs seventy two thousand only) out of which as above said Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) on 14.3.1997 and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs only) on 26.4.97. In these circumstances, a total loan amount as advanced to defendant No.1 was to the tune of Rs. 8,72,000 (Rupees eight lakhs seventy two thousand only) out of which as above said Rs. 72,000 (Rupees seventy two thousand only) was advanced by means of cash under receipt of defendant No.2, who was authorized by defendant No.1, took loan, executed receipt on his behalf. Defendant No.2 while acting on behalf of defendant No.1 executed the receipt of the above referred amount. Hence, defendant No.1 is not only liable to refund the advance amount of Rs. 8,72,000 (Rupees eight lakhs seventy two thousand only), but he has to pay the cost of the goods supplied which is to the tune of Rs. 4,15,570.55 (Rupees four lakhs fifteen thousand five hundred seventy and paise fifty five only) reflecting the amount of US$ 9541.00 (U.S. Dollars nine thousand forty one only)." 11. A stray assertion in para 7 that it was also agreed between the parties has to be read in context of the parties referred to in the preceding paras. It has to be noted that averments pertaining to the creation of the debt are to be found in para 3.5 and 6 of the plaint. There is no assertion that defendant No.2 undertook to repay the dues owed by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. 12. Order 6 Rule 2 CPC requires every pleadings to contain a statement in a concise form and the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim and the defence. Plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to concisely state what was the agreement, if at all, between him and defendant No.2. In the absence thereof a stray line in para 7 of the plaint that it was also agreed between the parties cannot be read as a liability pleaded by the plaintiff qua defendant No.2. 13. Though it has not influenced this Court and would be unnecessary for the decision on the application, receipts relied upon by the plaintiff show that defendant No.2 has executed the same by specifically mentiomng: "for Ramesh V Vohra". 14. Application is accordingly allowed. Plaint qua defendant No.2 is rejected. Needless to state that qua defendant No. 1 proceedings shall continue. 15. No costs.