Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 11 CS SCJ 1785/25 RAJVIR SINGH Vs. RS GAUTAM
30.07.2026
The court is functioning in both physical and virtual modes.
All the Counsels appearing through VC are requested to keep their
video on, appear in proper Court attire and join from a disturbance free
location.
Present: Sh. Vivek Verma, Ld. Proxy Counsel for Sh. Shrey Tanwar,
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant in person.
Put up for orders at 04:00 PM. Milan Goel
CJ-08 (Central)
30.07.2026/Delhi
At 04:00 PM
Present: None.
Vide this order, this court shall decide the preliminary issue
regarding the maintainability of the present suit and whether the plaint
discloses a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff.
Bereft of unnecessary details, the plaintiff has instituted the
present suit seeking recovery of Rs.2,93,500/- from the defendant. It is the
case of the plaintiff that in August, 2023, he came into contact with the
defendant through common friends. Thereafter, a partnership deed was
executed between the plaintiff, the defendant and Sh. Jeet Singh for carrying
on the business of manufacturing Terra Cotta products under the name and
style of Amarpali Ceramics. It is further pleaded that in the first week of
October, 2023, the defendant approached the plaintiff for a friendly loan of
Rs.3,00,000/- on account of urgent financial necessity and assured the
plaintiff that the same would be repaid upon receipt of his professional fees.
The plaintiff has further averred that it was agreed between
the parties that the repayment of the loan amount would be made by the
defendant by depositing the amount in the bank account of the partnership
firm. Acting upon the said assurance, the plaintiff advanced a sum of
-- 1 of 2 --
Rs.2,93,500/- through two cheques. It is alleged that despite repeated
requests and service of legal notice, the defendant failed to honour his
commitment, thereby giving rise to the present suit.
The contention that the plaintiff has no locus standi to
maintain the present suit merely because the repayment was agreed to be
made in the account of the partnership firm does not merit acceptance. A
meaningful reading of the plaint shows that the transaction pleaded by the
plaintiff is an independent contract of friendly loan entered into between the
plaintiff and the defendant. The stipulation that the amount was to be
credited into the account of the partnership firm only prescribed the mode
of repayment and, by itself, does not convert the transaction into one
exclusively belonging to the partnership firm.
A cause of action comprises the bundle of material facts
which entitle a plaintiff to seek relief. The plaint specifically pleads that the
plaintiff advanced the amount from his own funds at the request of the
defendant and that the defendant failed to fulfil his contractual obligation.
Assuming these averments to be correct, as is required at this stage, the
plaint discloses a complete cause of action in favour of the plaintiff.
Whether the amount subsequently became part of the
partnership assets or whether the transaction was intrinsically connected
with the affairs of the partnership are disputed questions of fact which
require evidence and cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the plaintiff has the necessary locus standi to
institute the present suit and that the plaint discloses a cause of action
warranting adjudication on merits.
Perusal of the record refelects that the Pleadings are
complete.
Put up for framing of issues on 14.09.2026. Milan Goel
CJ-08 (Central)
30.07.2026/Delhi
-- 2 of 2 --