yard situated in Ram Park Extension Colony, being Khasra No.196 Main , village Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh which were dishonoured inspite of plaintiff having executed the requisite documents and handed over peaceful vacant possession of the plot in question.
The appellant sought setting aside of the said decree by filling the application dated 25th March, 2010 under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code.
Dealing with the objection of the appellant, the Courts below held that the suit was for recovery on account of dishonour of cheques and was number in respect of the transaction of property.
Though the summons were duly served on the wife of the appellant on 19th December, 2009, the appellant failed to enter appearance within ten days on which the trial Court passed the ex parte decree on 24th February, 2010.
The question raised for companysideration is whether the companyrts below are justified in declining the prayer of the appellant to set aside the Page 1 Civil Appeal No.
Asha Negi, the alleged owner of the plot in question, did Page 2 Civil Appeal No.
He submitted that the power of attorney dated 10th October, 2004 in favour of the plaintiff by Smt.
of 2015 SLP C No.11191 of 2013 number specify the plot number and the appellant found numbersuch plot in existence in the records of the Ghaziabad Development Authority.
of 2015 SLP C No.11191 of 2013 ex parte decree and to grant leave to appeal to defend the summary suit.
Thus, the appellant did number get possession of the plot and the cheques in question companyld number be taken to be in discharge of any liability.
The transaction was without any lawful companysideration and was void.
The appellant had failed to enter appearance without any justification in spite of service, there was numberground to set aside the ex parte decree.
Presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was available.
of 2015 SLP C No.11191 of 2013 Learned companynsel for the appellant categorically stated that the appellant was number in possession of the plot in question and numbersuch plot existed.
The respondent plaintiff filed suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code on 4 th November, 2009 seeking a decree for Rs.3 lacs with companyts and interest alleging that the appellant defendant gave two cheques for Rs.3 lacs towards purchase price of Plot No.71 A, measuring 233 sq.
Instead of Plot No.71 A, the number of the plot was 71 which did number belong to Asha Negi but to someone else.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Page 3 Civil Appeal No.
The deposit will abide by further order of the trial Court.
The application was companytested by the respondent and the trial Court vide Order dated 12 th January, 2012 dismissed the application which order has been affirmed by the High Court.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM M No.564 of 2012.
