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

He buys a car and demands to pay twice its price

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

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against another, at the end of which he asked to oblige the defendant to pay him 280,000 dirhams with interest at 12%. A 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, after which he paid the value of the car, but he was surprised that the defendant filed criminal lawsuits against him, and he 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, according to the "civil procedures" and "evidence" laws, is that the validity of the res judicata means that the judgment is authoritative among the litigants, and for the right itself a place and a reason, and it proves For every final judgment, even if it is not final, then 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 raised in it. This dispute.

The court indicated that it was 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 had been opened for that order. of the order issued 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 lawsuit, but rather decided that they are security checks, in addition to the fact that the discussion of the subject matter of the present case affects the authenticity of the commercial performance order issued, and it ruled The court dismissed the case, and imposed the plaintiff's expenses and fees.

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