A mistake phone number almost wasted a Bahraini right in a debt of 7,000 dinars, after the Civil Court announced the decisive oath to the number of another person for two sitting, then issued its ruling to invalidate the approval of the debt and with the innocence of the debtor, so he appealed the ruling to appeal, and the court indicated that he did not announce his phone, so the Civil Civil Appeal Court ruled that the initial case rejected the approval of the debt.
On the details of the lawsuit, the lawyer, Mohamed Al -Mannai, the defendant’s agent, indicated that the “debtor” plaintiff filed his lawsuit, and said that he was working in the field of contracting, and he met with the defendant because of the latter’s desire to make amendments in two properties owned by him, and during this interview another person came to the prosecutor’s office, and agreed with the defendant to return the plot of land with him, and it was agreed between them in exchange for an amount of 7 thousand dinars for this service. He must, who paid the amount without interference from the plaintiff, and the latter added that this agreement was made in his office, and that the defendant wanted to obtain a balance in exchange for what he paid to the person, so he issued a balance in the amount in favor of the defendant, but the person failed to retrieve the land owned by the defendant, so the latter asked him to return the amount he delivered to him, but he refused what led the defendant to file a report against him.
The prosecutor stated that – in order to avoid the issuance of criminal rulings against the intermediate person, he issued the approval of the debt in favor of the defendant, although he did not receive any amounts from him, and that he did not owe the latter to the amount contained in approval.
The court referred the lawsuit for the investigation, and witnessed proof as the prosecutor’s sons witnessed that the person had agreed with the defendant to end some procedures for the land owned by the Ministry of Housing, and they agreed with some outside his father’s office (the plaintiff) and the defendant gave the person an amount in two batches through his father’s office with a total of 6500 dinars, and that his father (the prosecutor) did not receive any amounts, and added that his father was not debtor to the plaintiff. Invided by the approval of the debt.
He signed the approval of the debt of the defendant because of his knowledge that the person was unable to pay, and that he was afraid of himself from the issuance of prison sentences before him.
The prosecutor’s agent asked for a reserve, to direct the decisive oath to the defendant in the following form: “I swear by God the Great that the prosecutor’s guardianship is busy with my favor in the amount contained in the approval of the debt and the capacity of 7000 dinars, on commercial transactions between me and him, and this amount has nothing to do with the issue of my land mediation with the Ministry of Housing and God is what I say a martyr.”
The defendant was not represented by his person, and a lawyer did not represent him, so the court returned the decision to direct the decisive oath, and set another session for the defendant to attend his person for his right, but he also did not attend, so the court ruled that the approval of the debt and the prosecutor was acquitted of the amount of 7,000 thousand dinars.
The defendant stabbed the appeal on the basis that he did not announce the decisive oath; As the mobile phone number announced is incorrect as it was not announced by the ruling, and that the relationship is not commercial, but it is the relationship of the creditor with the guarantor and the guarantor, and this was proven from the statements of the appellant witnesses against him, and that the appellant is ready for the decisive oath after adjusting its formula to be: In front of the documented to make a declaration of payment in installments in the form of commercial transactions, and that the other person did not commit the amount of the amount.
The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority was stated that the aforementioned number is registered in the name of another person, and it does not concern the appellant, so the court ruled to accept the appeal in form, and with the invalidity of the appellant, and before the matter of the matter of appeal to direct the decisive oath of the appellant, so the appellant came and recited the decisive oath where the court ended up the ruling to reject the beginner case.
