DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Vs. PRAKASH SETHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. -
(1.) The appellant, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation has questioned the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 24.5.1982 in Suit No. 143/1980 with a further prayer that the suit of the appellant be decreed in terms of the prayer made in the plaint. This appeal which was filed on 12.8.1983 had been on the 'Regular Board' of the Court for a considerable time and when it came up for hearing on 11.1.2007, the court passed the following order:-
"This appeal was listed for hearing yesterday on which date nobody was present on behalf of the respondent and at the request of the counsel appearing for the appellant, the case was adjourned for today. Even today, nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. The respondent has not been appearing in this case for quite some time though he had been served earlier in accordance with law. We direct the respondent to be proceeded against ex parte in the present appeal. Ex parte arguments heard. Order reserved."
(2.) The only question involved in the present appeal relates to the application of the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, in regard to the acknowledgment of debt. The Corporation filed a suit for recovery of Rs.34,000/-. It is stated that the defendant no.1 in the suit approached and requested the Corporation for grant of loan of Rs.10,000/- for running his industry. The loan was granted in terms of the agreement and indemnity bond dated 1.4.1975. The said party was also granted loan for an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- on different occasions and lastly on 28.6.1975. The defendants in the suit paid a sum of Rs. 1525/- on 19.12.1975 and another sum of Rs. 968/- on 24.6.78. Thereafter, he defaulted. The other defendant was the guarantor and as per the accounts maintained by the Corporation, a sum of Rs.34,000/- was the balance which was claimed by the Corporation in the suit.
(3.) The defendants had raised preliminary objections including that the suit was barred by time and stated that the loan was taken for purchase of machinery which was hypothecated to them and according to them no amount was due and the claim of the plaintiff was false. On pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person? OPP 2.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time? OPD 3.Whether there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants" If so, to what effect? OPD 4.To what amount, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? OPP 5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP 6.Relief.?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.