The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family, Civil and Administrative Suits upheld a ruling by a court of first instance, which obligated a woman to pay a man 64,000 dirhams, the price of a car he sold to her and traffic violations she committed. The court indicated that the appellant’s right to appeal had been forfeited.
In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a woman, in which he demanded that she be obliged to pay him 134,250 dirhams, noting that he sold the defendant a car for 44 thousand dirhams, and the sales contract was drawn up and signed by both parties, but he did not keep a copy of it, and the defendant was drafted. She had a check for the amount and received the car. When the check was presented to the bank for cashing, it bounced because there was no balance.
He pointed out that the defendant committed several traffic violations, black points were recorded against her in the car, and the total fines amounted to 40,250 dirhams, and she suffered material and moral damage.
The court of first instance ruled that the defendant must pay the plaintiff 64 thousand dirhams, and that she be obligated to pay fees and expenses.
The ruling was not satisfied by the appellant, so she appealed it and urgently demanded that the implementation of the appealed ruling be halted, the executive procedures issued until the appeal is decided, the appealed ruling be canceled due to the check proving that the debt document was forged in accordance with a final and conclusive penal ruling, and that the appellant be obligated to pay fees and expenses. She ruled that the appealed ruling was issued in absentia, as she was not properly notified of the ruling, and was notified via text message on a phone number that did not belong to her, and of which she knew nothing.
It considered that the appealed ruling was marred by an error in applying the law due to the lack of evidence, and the proof of the forgery of the check supported the appealed ruling acquitting her of the charge of giving a check without funds.
The respondent submitted a response memorandum stating that the appeal was submitted outside the legally prescribed deadlines, as it was submitted more than three years after the date of the ruling.
The appellant also knew of the ruling and presented the problem with its implementation.
She pointed out that the expert report submitted in the criminal case did not deny or confirm the authenticity of the appellant’s signature. The result of the examination was that it was not technically possible to prove or deny that the signature on the check was written on the appellant’s handwriting because it differed from her signature.
For its part, the Court of Appeal stated that what was recorded in the papers was that the appellant was notified of the ruling at her home, and the appellant did not deny that announcement, nor did she deny the address of the house at which it was announced, nor did she deny that her husband’s son received the announcement, but rather her mourning focused on the ruling that the announcement was made by text message on a phone number, It is an incorrect obituary.
The court ruled that the right to appeal was forfeited, and that the appellant was obligated to pay fees and expenses.
#woman #buys #car #check #balance.. #court #obligates #pay #thousand #dirhams
