A “missing approval” prohibits Asian

The Civil Court in Dubai rejected a lawsuit filed by an Asian person in which he demanded his right in one million and 150 thousand dirhams granted another in the form of checks, because he was unable to submit the original approval of his attribution to the defendant, while he called for his opponent to submit the original approval to prove the right, denying that he obtained any loan from the plaintiff.

In detail, an Asian person filed a civil lawsuit against another of the same nationality, requesting that he be obligated to pay him an amount of one million and 150 thousand dirhams, in addition to 5% legal benefit from the date of the case until the completion of the payment.

In his lawsuit, the prosecutor based that the defendant borrowed the amount, and received him in the form of five checks on different dates, adding that he had already obtained the money from the claimant’s account.

He stated that the defendant signed an approval in which he obliges himself to return the amount he obtained as a recovered loan to buy an apartment in their country, pledging to return it completely within a specific period.

He said that the defendant did not abide by what he admitted to his pledge, and refused to pay in a friendly manner, which forced him to resort to the judiciary.

I attach pictures of checks and a copy of the approval and translate it into Arabic.

For his part, the defendant denied what his opponent assigned to him.

He said that the checks that were mentioned were with amounts due to him, which the plaintiff paid, stressing that he had not borrowed anything from him, and asked him to submit the origin of the declaration to appeal to him with forgery, uniting the validity of what was stated in the declaration submitted to the court.

In turn, the claimant of the defendant’s memo that the origin of the declaration was missing, and he asked to hear the witnesses, so the court decided to seize the lawsuit for the ruling.

In the reasons for its ruling, the court stated that, according to the law of proof in civil transactions, the plaintiff must prove what he claims to be right, and the defendant for his denial, and the facts to be proven must be related to the lawsuit and productive in it, and it is permissible to accept it.

She explained that the indication of it, according to the constant in the papers, that the plaintiff filed his lawsuit on the basis of the existence of a loan contract between him and the defendant, and the latter’s commitment to the return of the amount in question as a loan, but the defendant disputed him in the nature of the money he received, and decided that it was a fulfillment of his rights.

The court indicated that the lawsuit was devoid of evidence of the loan, as the plaintiff submitted a copy of the approval attributed to the defendant, the last of which was submitted, and the original did not submit, and his image became without authenticity or weight in the proof, which the lawsuit became merely pronounced statements that are not supported by evidence, as well as that The court does not find that the plaintiff’s request to hear witnesses on the loan is a product.

In the reasons for her ruling, she emphasized that the rulings are based on assertion and certainty, not to doubt and guess, and it has been proven to her the inability of the plaintiff to advance the burden of proving his lawsuit.

She ruled to reject the lawsuit for her condition, and committed it to fees and expenses.

• The Civil Court in Dubai rejected the lawsuit for free of evidence.