SANKU PRAKASH Vs. V.K. VERGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.08.2009, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Papum Pare District, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh, in Review Petition No. 12 of 2009, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in Money Suit No. 01 of 2008 (FTC) was rejected. The short facts, leading to the filing of this appeal, may be narrated, as follows:

(2.) The defendant/appellant approached the plaintiff/respondent on several occasions for financial help. Accordingly, the plaintiff/respondent advanced loan to the defendant/appellant seeing his financial hardship and further considering that the defendant/appellant hailed from his own State. Accordingly, the defendant/appellant, executed promissory note on 12.10.2000 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) and on 20.12.2001 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (rupees seventy thousand), promising to pay back the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand) to the plaintiff/respondent on demand. The defendant/appellant allegedly did not pay back the loaned amount as promised in spite of repeated requests and approaches and instead issued cheques in favour of the plaintiff/respondent from his account bearing No. 543 of the Central Bank of India, Itanagar Branch, vide Cheque Nos. (i) 021341 dated 28.02.2002, (ii) 021342 dated 28.04.2002 and (iii) 021343 dated 28.04.2002, respectively; however, all the cheques, so issued by the defendant/appellant, bounced in the bank due to non-availability of fund in the account of the defendant/appellant. In spite of bouncing all the cheques so issued by the defendant/appellant, the plaintiff/respondent made a humble request to the defendant/appellant to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff/respondent but the defendant/appellant did not pay heed to such requests.

(3.) However, the plaintiff/respondent failed to repay the loan, and allegedly by taking undue advantage of the plaintiff/respondent's, old age, threatened not to return the borrowed amount. Thus, the plaintiff/respondent filed a money suit on 24.07.2006 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare District for realization of the principal with interests amounting to Rs. 4,25,500/-. Subsequently the plaintiff/respondent filed a misc. case praying for withdrawal of the money suit with liberty to file a suit afresh. The learned Addl. District Judge, Yupia allowed the prayer vide order dated 01.04.2008.