Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF A.S.J.(SFTC)
(PRESIDED OVER BY: ANIL CHANDHEL)
EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-000891-2026
(Old CNR No.DLWT01-009141-2021)
CS No.81/2026
(Old Civil DJ No. 887/2021)
Ms. Bimla
W/o Late Ram Kumar,
R/o N-156-157, JJ Colony,
Raghubir Nagar, Tagore Garden,
Delhi – 110027 ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Mr. Inder,
S/o Mr. Swaroop,
R/o House No.466,
Black C-2, Sultanpuri,
Delhi-110018 ….Defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.3,18,000/-
ALONGWITH INTEREST.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.11.2021
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 24.01.2026
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09.02.2026
Appearances:
Mr. Abhishek Srivastav, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff.
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 1 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 1 of 17 --
None for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit, against the
Defendant, for recovery of Rs.3,18,000/- alongwith
interest.
2. The facts stated in the Plaint:
The facts, as set out in the plaint, are summed up in brief in
the paras hereinbelow:
i. The Defendant was a family friend of the Plaintiff
and her husband. The Defendant approached the
Plaintiff’s husband in January, 2017 for a friendly
loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on account a financial
urgency. The Plaintiff husband initially refused,
however subsequently gave loan of Rs.3,18,000/- to
the Defendant.
ii. The Defendant executed a loan agreement dated
17.01.2017 in favour of the Plaintiff’s husband and
it was undertaken by the Defendant that he would
repay the amount of Rs.3,18,000/- within period of
two years and would pay interest if the repayment
is delayed.
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 2 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 2 of 17 --
iii. The Defendant did not make the repayment in
terms of the agreement after the period of two years
and the Plaintiff’s husband approached the
Defendant for repayment. The Defendant made
assurances of repayment, however no payment was
made by the Defendant.
iv. The Plaintiff’s husband unfortunately passed away
on 24.04.2021 and subsequently the Plaintiff asked
the Defendant to repay the loan, however the
Defendant did not make any payment. The Plaintiff
issued a legal notice dated 04.09.2021, which was
served and the Defendant neither complied with the
notice nor paid the amount and accordingly the
Plaintiff has filed the present suit.
3. Service of the Defendant and the Written Statement:
3.1. The notice of the suit was issued to the Defendant and the
Defendant entered appearance through his Counsel and
filed the written statement in the matter. The Defendant has
denied the averments of the plaint in his written statement.
It stated in the written statement that the Defendant did not
know the Plaintiff or her family or her husband and no loan
was ever taken by the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s
husband. It is stated that the loan agreement and the
receipts filed by the Defendant are forged and fabricated
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 3 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 3 of 17 --
and the suit was filed merely to extort money from
Defendant by causing his harrasement.
4. The facts stated in the Replication:
4.1 The Plaintiff has filed the replication to the written statement
of the Defendant, whereby the Plaintiff has traversed the
contents of same and has made the necessary denials,
reiterating the averments of the plaint.
5. Issues:
5.1 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed on 01.02.2023:
i. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
recovery of Rs.3,18,000/- (Rupees Three lacs
eighteen thousand only), as prayed for? OPP.
ii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If
yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
iii. Whether the documents filed by the Plaintiff are
forged and fabricated? OPD
iv. Relief.
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 4 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 4 of 17 --
6. The Plaintiff’s Evidence:
6.1. The Plaintiff has led his evidence and has examined two
witnesses in support of her case. The Plaintiff has appeared
as PW-1 and has reiterated the contentions of the plaint in his
examination-in-chief. The Plaintiff has exhibited and relied
upon the following documents in his examination-in-chief:
i. Exhibit PW-1/1(Colly): Original Loan
agreement/payment receipt.
ii. Exhibit PW-1/2: Copy of death certificate (De-
exhibited and marked as Mark-A).
iii. Exhibit PW-1/3: Legal Notice.
iv. Exhibit PW-1/4: Postal Receipt.
v. Exhibit PW-1/5: Copy of complaint filed with
postal department (De-exhibited and marked as
Mark-B).
vi. Exhibit PW-1/6: Copy of intimation letter issued by
postal department (De-exhibited and marked as
Mark-C).
vii. Exhibit PW-1/7: Copy of Adhaar Card.
The PW-1 was not cross-examined on behalf of the
Defendant and was discharged upon conclusion of her cross-
examination.
6.2. After examination of PW-1, the Plaintiff closed her evidence,
however, subsequently the Plaintiff filed an application for
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 5 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 5 of 17 --
reopening of evidence, which was allowed and the Plaintiff
was permitted to examine another witness, i.e., PW-2. The
Plaintiff has examined the witness of the loan agreement in
question as the PW-2. The PW-2 has relied on the loan
agreement in question, i.e., PW-1/1, in his examination-in-
chief and identified his signatures on the same. The PW-2
was not cross-examined on behalf of the Defendant and was
discharged upon conclusion of his examination in chief. The
Plaintiff again closed her evidence after examination of PW-
2. The Defendant was proceeded against ex-parte on
26.04.2023 and has not appeared subsequently for seeking
any opportunity to lead evidence in the matter and therefore,
the matter was posted for final arguments after conclusion of
the Plaintiff’s evidence.
7. Submissions.
7.1. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff
has duly proved the loan agreement between the parties
through the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. It is submitted
that the Defendant has failed to prove the contentions of loan
agreement being forged and fabricated and therefore, the
liability of the Defendant for repayment of the loan amount
is established on record. It is submitted that the Defendant
has failed to challenge /contradict the testimony of the
Plaintiff’s witnesses and the Plaintiff has established her
entitlement for the suit amount in terms of the evidence on
record.
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 6 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 6 of 17 --
8. Conclusions on Issues and reasons for such conclusions:
Three Issues have been framed in the suit. The Issue No.1
and 2 pertain to the entitlement of the Plaintiff to recover the
suit amount, whereas the Issue No.3 pertain to contentions of
forgery of loan agreement in question, as stated in the written
statement of the Defendant. The Issue No.1 and 2 are
dependent on the outcome of the Issue No.3 and therefore,
the Issue No.3 is being taken up first for discussion.
8.1. Issue No.3: Whether the documents filed by the
Plaintiff are forged and fabricated?
OPD
8.1.1. The onus to prove the Issue No.3 is upon the Defendant. It is
stated in preliminary objection No.4 of the written statement
that the documents filed by the Plaintiff are forged and
fabricated. It is further stated in para 4-6 of reply on merits
of the written statement that the loan agreement / loan receipt
filed by the Plaintiff is forged and fabricated and signatures
of the Defendant are forged in the same. The Plaintiff has led
her evidence and has exhibited the loan agreement/Receipt
as Exhibit PW-1/1. The Plaintiff has also examined the
witness to the aforesaid loan agreement as the PW-2, who
has stated that the aforesaid loan agreement was executed in
his presence and the Defendant signed the same after duly
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 7 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 7 of 17 --
receiving the amount of Rs.3,18,000/-. The Defendant has
not cross-examined the PW-1 and PW-2 and therefore, their
contentions of examination in chief are deemed to be
admitted on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant further
did not lead any evidence in the affirmative to establish the
contentions of the aforesaid document being forged. The
Defendant did not enter the witness box for affirming the
contentions of forgery, which were stated in the written
statement. No other admitted signatures of the Defendant in
credible documents such as bank accounts or other
government approved documents were produced to
distinguish the signatures in question by comparison in order
to corroborate the contentions of forgery. Therefore, the
Defendant failed to prove in affirmative that the documents
filed by the Plaintiff or the loan agreement in question is
forged. The Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of
the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
8.2. Issue No. 1: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a
decree of recovery of Rs.3,18,000/-
(Rupees Three lacs eighteen thousand
only), as prayed for? OPP.
8.2.1. The onus to prove the Issue No.1 is upon the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of the loan
granted by her husband to the Defendant. The Plaintiff has to
prove the following facts in order to establish her entitlement
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 8 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 8 of 17 --
for the decree of the amount claimed in the present suit:
i. The Plaintiff’s husband had given a friendly loan of
Rs.3,18,000/- to the Defendant.
ii. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of
aforesaid loan from the Defendant.
iii. The suit is instituted within the period of limitation.
The above-mentioned facts are being discussed in detail in
the paras herein below.
8.2.2. Whether the Plaintiff’s husband had given a
friendly loan of Rs.3,18,000/- to the Defendant ?
i. The loan transaction is stated to be recorded in the loan
agreement dated 17.01.2017. The original loan agreement
has been filed on record and is exhibited in the testimony of
the Plaintiff as PW-1/1. The Plaintiff is not the party to the
aforesaid loan agreement, however, she has stated in the
examination in chief that the Ex.PW1/1 was executed in her
presence and the loan in question was given by her husband
to the Defendant in her presence. The Plaintiff has also
examined witness of the loan agreement as PW-2 and the
PW2 has also affirmed that Ex.PW1/1 was executed between
the Plaintiff’s husband and the Defendant in his presence.
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 9 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 9 of 17 --
The PW-1 and the PW-2 have thus affirmed and reiterated in
their examination in chief that loan agreement i.e., Exhibit
PW-1/1 is executed between the Plaintiff’s husband and the
Defendant and further the amount of Rs.3,18,000/- was
given to the Defendant by the Plaintiff’s husband in cash.
The PW-1 and PW-2 have not been cross-examined on the
aforesaid aspects.
ii. The Defendant has stated in the written statement that his
signatures on the Exhibit PW-1/1 were forged, however the
Defendant has failed to prove the allegations of forgery, in
terms of discussion and conclusions rendered hereinabove
under Issue No.3. Therefore, in terms of the collective
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, the PW-1/1 stands proved.
The proof of document is also proof of its contents and in
terms of the same, it is established that an amount of
Rs.3,18,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff’s husband to the
Defendant as loan.
iii. The loan in question, i.e., the amount of Rs.3,18,000/-, was
paid in cash and there is no other proof of the aforesaid
payment besides the loan agreement, i.e., Exhibit PW-1/1. It
has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“Georgekutty Chacko Versus M.N Saji dated 01.09.2025
in Civil Appeal No. 11309 of 2025:
MANU/SCOR/66848/2025” that the right to recovery
cannot be denied only on the ground that the amount was
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 10 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 10 of 17 --
stated to be paid in cash, if the same is admitted in terms of
documents. The aforesaid observations are being reproduced
hereinbelow:
“…There being specific stand by the appellant that he
has paid Rs.30,80,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs eighty
thousand) to the respondent pursuant to a promissory
note, which incidentally has been upheld and not
disbelieved, the onus would be on the respondent to
dispel such fact. Further, it is not uncommon that in
money transactions, there is a component of cash also
involved and just because a person is not able to prove
the transfer through official modes i.e., through any
negotiable instrument or bank transaction, would not
lead to the conclusion that such amount was not paid
through cash, especially when there was a categorical
statement to this effect by the appellant before the Court
concerned. Moreover, the initial presumption of legally
enforceable debt comes from the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 also and thus the onus is on the
respondent to prove that no such amount was given.
Only because documentary proof was not available, we
find such view taken to be erroneous. A person who
gives cash obviously would not be having any
documentary proof per se. Sometimes there may be an
occasion where even for a cash transaction, a receipt is
taken, but absence of the same would not negate and
disprove the stand that the cash transaction also took
place between the parties.”
Since the aforesaid transaction is duly recorded in the
Exhibit PW-1/1, therefore, the right to recover cannot denied
merely for the reason that the same was paid in cash.
8.2.3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of
aforesaid loan from the Defendant ?
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 11 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 11 of 17 --
i. The loan was given by the Plaintiff’s husband, who is stated
to have died on 29.05.2021. The Plaintiff has placed on
record the death certificate of her husband and the same is
marked as Mark-A in examination in chief of the PW-1.
However subsequently the Plaintiff has placed on record the
original death certificate of her late husband on 29.01.2025.
The Plaintiff is mentioned as wife in the death certificate.
Further the Plaintiff has also filed the pension payment Order
of her husband on 29.01.2025. The aforesaid document is
attested by the Accounts Officer, MCD and the Plaintiff is
mentioned as wife of Late Ram Kumar in the aforesaid
documents.
ii. The Plaintiff has stated in the examination in chief that she is
the wife of late Ram Kumar and the aforesaid contentions
are not challenged by the Defendant by cross-examination or
by affirmative evidence. Being the wife and the first line
legal heir of her husband, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover
the debt of her husband. Further the loan agreement in
question, i.e., Exhibit PW-1/1, itself states that the term
‘parties’ in agreement shall include their legal heirs. Though
the Plaintiff has filed the present suit independently, however
it goes without saying that if any decree for recovery is
granted in her favour, the Plaintiff would receive the amount
on behalf of all the legal heirs, as per their entitlement in
terms of law of succession and not to the exclusion of
anyone. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to maintain the
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 12 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 12 of 17 --
present suit for recovery of debts / amount receivable by her
husband, on account of being a legal heir.
8.2.4. Whether the suit is instituted within the period of
limitation ?
i. Though the Defendant has not pleaded the objection of
limitation in the written statement, however, it is the mandate
of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 that every suit
instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the
prescribed period shall be dismissed, although the limitation
has not been set up as a defence. Therefore, this court has to
adjudicate and decide the issue of limitation, even in
absence of any challenge about the same on behalf of the
Defendant.
ii. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of a
friendly loan given by her husband to the Defendant. The
loan was given on 17.01.2017, in terms of a loan agreement,
i.e., Ex.PW-1/1 and the present suit is instituted on
27.11.2021. The loan agreement records that the aforesaid
loan was given for a period of two years. Ld. Counsel for the
Plaintiff has submitted that since the loan was given for
period of two years, therefore, the cause of action for
recovery would arise only on 17.01.2019, when the same
was not repaid and therefore, the limitation would not fall
under Article 19 or 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the
case will governed by the Article 113 of the Limitation Act,
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 13 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 13 of 17 --
1963.
iii. Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes that the
limitation for money payable for money lent is three years
from the date, when the loan is made. Article 21 further
provides that the limitation for money lent under an
agreement that it shall be payable on demand is three years
from the date, when the loan is made. However, in the
present case the loan was not payable on demand and the
loan agreement provides that the loan is made for a period of
two years and therefore, Article 19 and Article 21 will not
cover the loan in question. If the loan does not fit in the
description of any of the suits mentioned in the Schedule of
Act of 1963, then the suit for recovery of such a loan would
be governed by Article 113, which can be filed within a
period of three years from the date, when right to sue
accrues.
iv. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
“Satish Kumar vs. Reena Bhoumik (18.04.2012) :
2012:DHC:2576: MANU/DE/2394/2012” that if the loan is
agreed to be repayable after a certain period, the cause of
action for recovery would arise only after such agreed period
and not on the date of loan, when the loan was made. The
relevant part of the observations of Hon’ble High Court in
the aforementioned judgment are being reproduced
hereinbelow:
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 14 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 14 of 17 --
“4. A reading of the aforesaid paras shows that the trial
Court has held that period of limitation of every
loan granted is three years and the suit has to be
filed under Article 19 within three years of the loan
being granted. This reasoning of the trial Court is
ex facie incorrect because loan can be granted to be
repayable after a particular period of time of, let us
say one year, two years, three years and so on.
Limitation to recover the loan on the cause of action
will arise on the date when the loan is not repaid
i.e. not from the date of grant of the loan but after
one year or two years or three years of grant of
loan when cause of action will arise to file the suit
for recovery of amount. The period of limitation will
be three years from the date of default i.e. the date
when the loan ought to have been repaid but is not
repaid. Such suits for recovery of loan granted will
not be governed by Article 19 of the Limitation Act,
1963, and in fact will be governed by Article 113 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 which states that a suit has
to be filed within three years from arising of cause
of action.”
Thus the Hon’ble High Court has held that if there is time
fixed for repayment of the loan, the limitation for the same
would not start from the date of loan, as per Article 19 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, however the limitation in such a case
would commence from date of default and the suit will be
governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has followed the aforesaid view
in the judgment in “Ashok Kumar Vs. Kartar Singh:
2017:DHC:3422.”
v. The loan in present case was made on 17.01.2017 and the
same was given for two years. The period of two years came
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 15 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 15 of 17 --
to an end on 16.01.2019, when the cause of action for
recovery of loan arose. The period of three years from the
date of cause of action, i.e., 16.01.2019, comes to an end on
15.01.2022 and the present suit has been filed prior to the
aforesaid date, i.e., on 27.11.2021 and is therefore, instituted
within limitation.
8.2.5. Therefore, the Plaintiff has proved on account of
preponderance of probabilities that she is entitled to recover
an amount of Rs.3,18,000/- from the Defendant and the Issue
No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff.
8.3. Issue No. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any
interest? If yes, at what rate and for
what period? OPP.
8.3.1. The Plaintiff has claimed interest from the date of institution
of the suit at rate of 6% per annum. The aforesaid rate of
interest is a reasonable and nominal one even for a friendly
loan. Therefore, the Plaintiff is granted interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of institution of the suit till the actual
recovery of the amount from the Defendant. The Issue No. 2
is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against
the Defendant.
9. Final Decision/Relief:
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 16 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 16 of 17 --
9.1. The suit of the Plaintiff is decreed against the Defendant for
an amount of Rs.3,18,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of institution of the suit till actual
realization of the amount. The Decree Sheet be drawn up
accordingly, subject to payment of the deficient Court fees
towards the decree of interest. The Judgment in the present
case was reserved on 24.01.2026 by the undersigned,
when the undersigned was posted as District Judge-04,
West, THC, Delhi and subsequently before
pronouncement of Judgment, the undersigned was
transferred to this Court in terms of transfer Order
No.08/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2026 dated 06.02.2026 issued by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and in terms of Note
No.2 of the aforementioned transfer order, the present
case was retained for pronouncement of Judgment and
the same has been pronounced today. The Court Ahlmad
is directed to send / handover the files of the present case
to the Court Ahlmad of the Court of Ld. District Judge-
04, West, THC, Delhi and the files are further directed to
be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance
by the Court Ahlmad of Ld. District Judge-04, West,
THC, Delhi.
Announced in the open Court (ANIL CHANDHEL)
today on 09th of February, 2026 ASJ (Special FTC),
East, KKD, Delhi.
09.02.2026.
Bimla Vs. Inder Page No. 17 of 17
CS No.81/2026
-- 17 of 17 --