Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions have been preferred against the same order dated 17.10.2007 as passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 146/2006 whereby the plaintiffs -respondents have been permitted to implead another defendant in their money recovery suit. The petitioner in CWP No. 2243/2008 is the defendant permitted to be added whereas the petitioner in CWP No. 7138/2007 in the original defendant. The petitions being related to the same impugned order have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.
(2.) THE background facts and relevant aspects of the matter are that the plaintiff No. 1 Ram Avatar and his father, the plaintiff No. 2 Heera Lal have filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,06,000/ - against the defendant Vishnu Kant stating his particulars as under: Varnacular Text Varnacular Text While stating that the defendant Vishnu Kant is the adjoining neighbour of the plaintiff No. 1 and the parties were in good relations, the plaintiffs have averred that the defendant had been carrying on business of coolers in the name 'Kuldeep Coolers' and had another business in the name of 'Sharda Traders '; that on demand, the plaintiff No. 2 extended a loan to the defendant in the amount of Rs.2,00,000/ - through cheque No. 0312641 dated 22.09.2000 drawn in the name of the firm Sharda Traders, the defendant represented himself to the owner whereof; and that interest was agreed to be paid @ 18% per annum. Such averments of the plaintiffs, relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereunder: Varnacular Text
(3.) THE plaintiffs have further averred that the defendant did not make payment towards interest until July 2003 and when the plaintiff No. 2 threatened to file the suit for recovery of the due amount, on 24.07.2003, the defendant handed over 8 cheques each in the amount of Rs.25,000/ -. The plaintiffs have stated the particulars and details of such cheques in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint; and according to the plaintiffs, first 4 cheques were given of the dates 03.08.2003, 30.08.2003, 19.09.2003, and 15.10.2003 respectively whereas in relation to other four cheques, the defendant was to give out the dates later. It has also been alleged that the defendant, while stating slump in his business, delivered such cheques after taking in writing from the plaintiff No. 2 that the amount was advanced without interest; and that the plaintiff, looking to his old age accepted the cheques with such writing though, according the plaintiffs, the defendant had earlier agreed to pay interest and there was no reason or occasion to advance the loan without interest.;