Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 17 CS SCJ 2183/25
KRISHAN Vs. BHAWNA PAHWA
16.07.2026
Present : Sh. Yogesh Sharma and Yogeshwar Singh, Ld.
counsels for plaintiff.
Sh. Vaibhav Jain and Manish Mehta, Ld. counsels
for defendant.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders at 4:00pm.
(Raghav Sharma)
CJ-07(C)/THC/Delhi/16.07.2026
At 4:00pm
Present : None for plaintiff.
Sh. Manish Mehta, Ld. Counsels for defendant.
It is a settled law that leave to defend application
can not be dismissed if the defence taken by the defendant is
substantial or is not frivolous or vexatious. It is also settled that at
this stage, the merit of defence is not be seen, rather it is to seen
whether the defendant has a factual defence or not even though
the same may be a weak defence. If the defence is factual and not
frivolous or vexatious meaning thereby that it is not moonshine
in nature, the same is required to be allowed to be taken in
defence and defendant be given an opportunity to plead his
defence.
In nutshell the pleadings of the plaintiff is that he
had granted the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash in different
installments in year 2018 and when defendant could not repay
the same he issued the impugned unnamed and undated cheque,
which got dishonored on 11.10.23. After this notice was issued to
defendant and the present case was filed.
-- 1 of 2 --
The defence of defendant is that the impugned
cheques were issued by husband of defendant to one Mr. Jitender
Gandhi in year 2018 as security for debt which was fully repaid
by her husband. The said Mr. Gandhi initiated proceedings u/s
138 on same facts which complaint was dismissed and
defendant’s husband was acquitted on 03.09.22. Defendant has
denied the claim of having received loan and issuance of
impugned cheque to plaintiff. She has also claimed that the suit is
barred by limitation as the same expired in year 2021. Defendant
has also pleaded that as the cheque was later filled by plaintiff
without her authority the same amount to alteration u/s 87 of NI
Act.
The defence taken by the defendant herein can not
be called vexatious or moonshine. The same is based on distinct
factual pleadings wherein defendant has denied issuing impugned
cheque and taking of loan from plaintiff. The allegations of suit
being barred by limitation and aspect of unauthorized alteration
in the cheque are factual in nature. In view thereof, defence of
defendant can not be called vexatious or frivolous. Therefore, he
deserve to be given an opportunity to defend the suit.
In terms of above observations, the application for
leave to defend of defendant is hereby allowed.
Let WS be filed, subject to limitation period with
advance copy to opposite side against receipt, after which,
replication, if any, be filed on the NDOH with advance copy to
opposite said against receipt at least 7 days prior to NDOH.
List for completion of pleadings/further proceedings
on 02.09.2026.
(Raghav Sharma)
CJ-07(C)/THC/Delhi/16.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --