Case Study Of Gudipadwa

02. In short, it is a case of the plaintiff that the defendant is his close friend. The plaintiff and defendant used to work for the sugar factory. The defendant is a labour contractor and provides labours for sugar cutting. The defendant contacted the plaintiff and gave assurance him that he will supply labours for sugar cutting and demanded Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff initially avoided the defendant, but considering the close friendly relations, he agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff has paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the defendant in two installments. Thereafter, on 19/11/2007 the defendant has executed one agreement in favour of the plaintiff. In the said agreement, the defendant has clearly mentioned that he

The plaintiff after making payment of Rs.2,50,000/- requested to the defendant to supply labours as per the agreement. The defendant gave assurance to supply the labours in terms of the agreement, but did not supply. The defendant failed to supply the labours in terms of the agreement, due to which the plaintiff has suffered heavy loss. Thereafter, the defendant started to avoid the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff contacted the defendant and requested him to repay Rs.2,50,000/-. The defendant agreed to repay Rs.2,50,000/- till the festival of 'Gudipadwa' of the year 2010. The plaintiff waited till the festival of 'Gudipadwa' of the year 2010, but the defendant did not repay Rs.2,50,000/- to him. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant and thereby demanded Rs. 2,50,000/-. The defendant has received the said legal notice but he did not comply with the notice. The plaintiff again contacted the defendant on 07/06/2010 and requested him to repay the above amount, but he flatly refused. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and prayed to decree the same with

The defendant resisted the suit claim by filing his written statement (Exh.No.12). In the written statement, the defendant denied all adverse contentions and contended that the contents of the plaint are false and imaginary. In an additional written statement, the defendant pleaded that he and plaintiff reside in the same village, but he never requested the plaintiff to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- for supplying the labours for sugar cutting. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff never paid him Rs.2,50,000/- in two installments and he has not executed any agreement on 19/11/2007 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that he never executed any receipt of payment in favour of the plaintiff. He also not issued the cheque no. 495044 in favour of the plaintiff. In this regard, the defendant pleaded that on 19/10/2008 he lost his cheque no. 495044 at S.T. Stand, Ambajogai and he reported this matter to the Bank of Baroda, Branch Ambajogai on 20/10/2008. The plaintiff has used the said cheque for filing the present suit. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff in the plaint at one place pleaded that he had given Rs.2,50,000/- to the defendant as hand loan and at another place, he pleaded that he had given the said amount to the defendant for supplying the labours. The said fact itself shows that the pleading of the plaintiff is false and imaginary. The defendant further pleaded that the details mentioned in the cheque bearing no. 495044 are not written by him. So also