INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.04.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar in Civil Misc. Application no. 46/17/2017.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Suit before the trial court under Order 37 of CPC for recovery of amount Rs. 5,30,000/- and for permanent injunction against the appellant defendant not to alienate the ship no. 6 situated at Ganesh Market, Alwar and Shop no. 3, situated at Mahadev Complex, Mohalla Sidhipura, Alwar to any person. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant-appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from plaintiff-respondent and thereafter plaintiff-respondent handed over a cheque dated 17.09.2016 of Corporation Bank, Branch Alwar to the appellant-defendant for a period of six months on the interest of 12% per annum. The same amount was withdrawn by the appellant-defendant and thereafter, after laps of six months when the plaintiff asked about the amount, the appellant-defendant refused to return the amount. The plaintiff-respondent along with the suit filed an application under Order 38, Rule 5 read with Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 and section 151 of CPC.
(3.) The appellant-defendant filed reply to the application submitted by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 38, Rule 5 read with Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 and section 151 of CPC. In reply to the application, the appellant-defendant denied the averments made by the plaintiff-respondent in the plaint as well as in the application to temporary injunction. It is specifically mentioned that the plaintiff-respondent is a close relative of appellant-defendant and for his business requirement borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the wife of appellant-defendant. The plaintiff-respondent failed to returned the amount and on repeated requests plaintiff-respondent handed over the alleged cheque to the appellant. The defendant-appellant at the time of receiving the cheque asked about the cheque because the cheque was drown in the name of appellant firm then the plaintiff-respondent told the appellant that if you want to take amount back then you have to take this cheque otherwise I have no other source to return your amount, then only the appellant accepted the cheque in question from the plaintiff-respondent. It was further stated in the reply to the application that shops mentioned by the plaintiff-respondent in the application have already sold by the appellant-defendant to the other persons through registered sale deed. It is further stated that he has received the cheque on account of business transactions between the parties and prayed that the application filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed.;