He demanded to oblige its old owner to pay him 280,000 dirhams

A man buys a car and asks the seller to pay twice its price

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims rejected a man’s claim in which he demanded that another be obligated to pay him 280,000 dirhams, the value of two checks that the defendant wrote to the defendant for the value of a car he bought from him and then paid for it.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against another, at the conclusion of which he asked to oblige the defendant to pay him 280,000 dirhams with interest at 12%. In reserve, an expert was delegated in the case and obligated him to pay expenses, fees, and fees, indicating that he had purchased a car from the defendant for an amount of 140 thousand. Dirhams and handed him a check of the agreed value, after which the defendant argued that he had lost the check, so he handed him another check for the same amount, and then he paid the value of the car, but he was surprised that the defendant filed criminal lawsuits against him and also issued a payment order for the value of the two checks.

During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff’s attorney attended while the defendant attended in person, and the court clarified that the decision, in accordance with Articles 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, and 49 of the Evidence Code, that the validity of the res judicata means that the judgment has authority between the litigants and for the same right, a place and a reason, and it is established for each judgment It is final, even if it is not final. If it becomes final, it acquires the force of a res judicata, and it was also decided that when the judgment attains the power of a res judicata, it prevents the litigants in the lawsuit in which it was issued from returning to the discussion of the issue in which it was decided in any subsequent lawsuit in which this dispute is raised, even with legal evidence. Or a fact that was not previously raised in the first case or was raised and was not discussed by the judgment issued in it.

The court indicated that it is established from the papers that the defendant had previously obtained a commercial performance order against the plaintiff for the value of the two checks in question, and an executive file was opened for that order. against him.

She pointed out that it is also established from the papers that the plaintiff was issued against him with penal judgments regarding the checks in question, and he did not pay in them what he decided on the reasons for his present claim, but decided that they were security checks, in addition to the fact that discussing the subject of the present case affects the validity of the commercial performance order issued, and the court ruled to reject the case. And obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses and fees.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news