Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1526 (PNJ)

Kamal Parkash v. Simranpal Singh Gill

2012-10-18

AJAY TEWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J.: (Oral) - This petition has been filed against an order declining the prayer for dismissal of the plaint. 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs. 1.18 crore. Para No.1 of the plaint is quoted herein below :- “1. That the defendants belong to one family and they are well known to the plaintiff No.1. Being so, the defendants approached the plaintiffs for raising loan as they were in dire need of the same. Considering the request of defendants to be genuine, the plaintiffs advanced a loan of Rs. One crore to the defendants by way of pay orders on 6.3.2006, in the following manner :- a) Pay order No.160017 dated 6.3.2006 for Rs.20 lacs drawn on IDBI Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana in favour of Geetu Goyal; b) Pay order No.160018 dated 6.3.2006 for Rs. 20 lacs drawn on IDBI Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana in favour of Raksha Rani Goyal; c) Pay order No. 160019 dated 6.3.2006 for Rs. 20 lacs drawn on IDBI Bank, Feroze Gandhi market, Ludhiana in favour of Manav Goyal; d) Pay order No.160020 dated 6.3.2006 for Rs. 20 lacs drawn on IDBI Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana in favour of Tushar Goyal; e) Pay order No.160021 dated 6.3.2006 for Rs. 15 lacs drawn on IDBI Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana in favour of M/S Goyal Knitwears Private Limited; f) Pay order No.160022 dated 6.3.2006 for Rs. 5 lacs drawn on IDBI Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana in favour of M/S Goyal Knitwears Private Limited.” 3. The petitioner filed the instant application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC praying that the plaint may be rejected on the ground that he had not taken any loan and, therefore, he could not be held liable therefor. It was the further plea of the petitioner that even as regards defendants No.3 to 6 (respondents No.4 to 7 herein), individual loans may have been advanced to them and, therefore, it was incumbent on respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs to have filed individual suits against them. 4. It was the further plea of the petitioner that even as regards defendants No.3 to 6 (respondents No.4 to 7 herein), individual loans may have been advanced to them and, therefore, it was incumbent on respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs to have filed individual suits against them. 4. At the very outset, it must be noticed that since no such application was moved by defendants No.3 to 6, it has to be held that they had no grouse against the filing of the plaint and had no intention to challenge the same under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. As regards the present petitioner, no doubt he has not taken the loan personally and no doubt he has already been impleaded as Director of defendant No.1 but in that eventuality, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC would not lie but only under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was maintainable. Consequently, I find no merit in this petition the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.