I gave up on directing the decisive oath to him

A girl accuses a young man of seizing 165,000 dirhams that he borrowed from her

Abu Dhabi Civil Litigation Court dismissed the lawsuit.

archival

A girl filed a lawsuit against a young man accusing him of seizing the sum of 165,000 dirhams he had borrowed from her and refused to return it. Civil and Administrative, dismissing the case.

In the details, a girl filed a lawsuit against a young man, in which she demanded that he pay her 165,000 dirhams, and in reserve, direct the decisive oath to him that he did not obtain from her the amount of the claim as an advance, as well as obligating him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney fees, noting that the defendant asked her to lend him The amount was nothing but responding to his request and lent him the full amount and upon his demand to return it, it delayed its payment, and submitted a photocopy of the transfers and invoices for her claim.

During the consideration of the case, the defendant attended in person and denied the debt and decided that he was ready to take the decisive oath. The court decided to direct the decisive oath to the defendant that his debt is not occupied by the plaintiff with any sums of money. .

For its part, the court clarified, in the merits of its ruling, that the evidence is on the one who claimed and the oath is on the one who denied, because the original acquittal and her preoccupation with it is a coincidence and the burden of proof falls on the one who claims, noting that the girl claimed that the defendant asked her to lend him sums of money as a debt, Accordingly, she transferred part of the amount by bank transfer, and the remaining part was received in cash, and the defendant had denied the case and argued that he had not borrowed any money from the plaintiff and that his debt was not occupied by any amount in her favour.

The court indicated that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence to prove the fact of the loan, and her statements regarding the incident were merely statements sent without a bond or evidence, and the documents she submitted regarding the transfer of sums of money through bank transfers, proving only the fact of the transfer, but not the fact that the plaintiff lent that amount To the defendant, and the mere transfer of the amount does not indicate the reason for the claim and only proves the fact of the transfer of money, and thus the case has lacked evidence to prove its validity, with the case having been based on no basis from reality and law, and the court ruled to reject the case, and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

• The plaintiff did not present any evidence to prove the fact of the loan, and her statements regarding her were merely sent.

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