Kumar v Kumar [2013] FJMC 355; Civil Action 124.2010 (27 September 2013)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Action No. 124 of 2010

Davendra Kumar
Plaintiff

v

Salen Kumar
Defendant

For Plaintiff : Ms. Rakai (Sherani)
For Defendant : Mr A Nand (Kohli and Singh)

Judgment

Introduction

In this matter the Plaintiff has filed a Writ claiming $29,218.13 being balance amount due and owing by the Defendant pursuant to a Promissory Note and costs of the action and such further and/or other relief as the court may deem just.

The Defendant filed a statement of defence. Hearing was set for 11th March 2013. Following the hearing both sides made written submissions which this Court has considered.

The Analysis of the Evidence

The Plaintiff and the Defendant gave evidence. This Court has noted the evidence given in Court and the documents tendered and pleaded.

From the evidence in Court this Court finds that the promissory note which was entered into between the parties was witnessed by a lawyer. No issues were raised on the role of the lawyer who witnesses the signing of the Promissory Note. The Court finds that there are no issues on the authenticity or otherwise of the promissory note and therefore the promissory note was valid and binding upon the parties. The primary question for the Court to determine is whether the Defendant owes the sum claimed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant for his part admits owing the Plaintiff $7540.00 as per his Statement of Defence.

Sadly in this case no receipts were issued for the dealing between the two. Both kept their own records which are not tallying up. A promissory note was issued for a sum of $40,000.00 of which the Plaintiff claims the Defendant has only paid $10835.00 while the defendant as per his statement of defence claims he owes the Plaintiff $7540.00, however later in cross-examination and re-examination the Defendant agreed owing $17,000.00 to the Defendant.

The Court does not believe the Defendant due to his changing of versions on how much he owes the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was consistent in his evidence and was not discredited. His records were also not in question. This Court believes the Plaintiff and finds that the Plaintiff is owed the sum claimed by him.

The Court Orders as follows:

(a) The Defendant to Pay the Plaintiff a sum of $29,165.00.
(b) No order as to costs.

28 days to appeal.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate

27th September 2013