Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 1 of 16
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE - 04
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presiding Judge- Sandeep Kumar Sharma, DHJS.
Date of institution of appeal : 23.12.2025
Date of decision
: 29.09.2026
RCA DJ No. 88/2025
CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025
In the matter of:-
1. SH. GULSHAN MALIK
S/O SH. RAM MALIK
R/O H.NO. U-136, VIKAS MARG,
NEAR LAXMI NAGAR METRO STATION,
DELHI – 110092.
2. SH. CHIRAG MALIK
S/O SH. GULSHAN MALIK
R/O H.NO. U-136, VIKAS MARG,
NEAR LAXMI NAGAR METRO STATION,
DELHI – 110092.
... APPELLANTS
Through : Mohd. Danish, Advocate
Sh. Mustafa Ali, Advocate
VERSUS
SH BHUDEV SINGH
S/O LATE SH. BHOLA SINGH
R/O S-287 A, SCHOOL BLOCK,
SHAKARPUR, DELHI-110092.
...RESPONDENT
Through : Sh. Raj Kumar Roy, Advocate
-- 1 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 2 of 16
ORDER
1. This Court is rendering the present order in response to an
appeal filed by Sh. Gulshan Malik and Sh. Chirag Malik
(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘defendants’) under Section 96
read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC against Sh. Bhudev Singh
(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘plaintiff’) against the judgment
and decree dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil
Judge-cum-Rent Controller (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
in CS No. 498/2022, titled as
“Sh. Bhudev Singh v. Gulshan
Malik & Anr.” (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘impugned
order’), vide which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for a
sum of .2,50,000/- against the defendants alongwith interest @	₹
6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of
realization of the same.
The appellants are the original defendants, and
the respondent is the original plaintiff. The
parties shall be referred to by the names listed in
the original suit for the purposes of convenience
and clarity.
Background facts of the case (In brief)
2. As per plaint, the plaintiff advanced friendly loan of
.2,50,000/- to the defendants for their business in January,	₹
2018, out of .1,00,000/- ( .1,00,000/- in January, 2018) was	₹ ₹
given in cash, whereas, two cheques bearing no. 068274 and
087118, both amounting to .50,000/- each) to the defendants	₹
in last week of January 2018 and further .50,000/- in May and	₹
August, 2018, transferred through bank.
-- 2 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 3 of 16
3. It is further averred that in discharge of said liability,
defendants issued cheque bearing No. 507617, dated
15.12.2021, amounting to .50,000/-, drawn on Karnataka Bank	₹
with assurance of it’s encashment on presentation. However, the
said got dishonoured with the remarks
‘funds Insufficient, vide
returning memo dated 20.12.2021.
4. It has also been averred that when despite repeated requests
defendants did not pay the amount then the plaintiff constrained
to file a suit before the Ld. Civil Court for the recovery of
.2,50,000/- and the same was decreed vide judgment and	₹
decree dated 23.09.2025.
Grounds of Appeal
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the defendants
have filed the present appeal mainly on the grounds that the Ld.
Trial Court did not consider the documents relied upon by the
plaintiff, which do not support the claim of the defendants for
.2,50,000/-, as the document relied upon by the plaintiff only	₹
confirms the payment of .1,50,000/- which is reflected by the	₹
passbook filed by the plaintiff.
6. Further, the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the fact that
the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim regarding payment
of .1,00,000/- in cash in January 2018, as he clearly admitted	₹
in his cross-examination that no one was present at the time of
making the said cash amount of .1,00,000/- to the defendants.	₹
-- 3 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 4 of 16
7. It is further contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to
consider that the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim for the
total amount of .2,50,000/-, as by way of evidence, the plaintiff	₹
could substantiate his claim for .1,50,000/- only.	₹
8. It has also been contended that the Ld. Trial Court did not
appreciate the fact that plaintiff admitted in his cross-
examination that he had already filed a case regarding dishonour
of cheque of .50,000/- against the defendants and not for	₹
.2,50,000/- which clearly shows the contradiction in the claim	₹
of the plaintiff.
9. It has been further contended that the Ld. Trial Court
dismissed the suit without appreciating the facts and evidence
in the right perspective. Therefore, it is prayed that the
impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court be set aside.
Facts pleaded in the reply to the appeal by plaintiff (In brief)
10. The plaintiff filed his reply to appeal and sought the
dismissal of the appeal with the submissions that the present
appeal is only filed to cause delay in the execution of the
impugned order. It is further averred that the defendant in the
proceedings of the complaint case under Section 138 NI Act
admitted the receiving of .1,50,000/- from the plaintiff as loan.	₹
11. The plaintiff further contended that the impugned order is
well-reasoned and the defendants are failed to mention any
-- 4 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 5 of 16
perversity or error in it therefore, the same is liable to be
dismissed. Moreover, for proving of the earning capacity of the
plaintiff it has been submitted that the plaintiffs own two
residential properties in Shakarpur area of East Delhi and he
receives rent from both the properties. Therefore, it is prayed
that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties
12. This Court has perused the entire record (including the trial
court record) and heard the Ld. Counsel for the respective
parties at length who argued in sync with the contents of their
respective pleadings. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for
the defendant that the impugned order is liable to be set aside
since the same has been passed without appreciating the facts
and evidence of the case in right perspective.
13. It has also been argued that the inconsistencies in the claim
of the plaintiff before the different set of litigations are suffice
to hold that the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the
court which disentitles him from claiming any right against the
defendant.
14.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has refuted all the
allegations of the defendant and argued that the appeal is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed, being devoid of any
merits. It has been argued that the Ld. Trial Court duly
appreciated the facts and evidence of the case and therefore,
-- 5 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 6 of 16
there is no grounds available with the defendants to challenge
the impguned order. It has also been contended that the
defendants have admitted the issuance cheque in favour of the
plaintiff and therefore, statutory presumptions under Section
118 of NI Act is available in favour of the plaintiff. The Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff has also submitted that the bank records
relied upon by the plaintiff are also supporting the claim of the
plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at its
threshold.
Points to be determined in the appeal
15. Having considered the rival submissions, the pleadings, the
evidence led before the Ld. Trial Court and the grounds urged
in appeal, this Court is of the view that the following points arise
for determination in the present appeal, that as to
(i) Whether the Ld. Trial Court was justified in holding
that the plaintiff had proved his entitlement to recover
the entire sum of .2,50,000/- from the defendants?	₹
(ii) Whether the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate the distinction between the amount which
stood corroborated by documentary evidence and the
amount allegedly advanced in cash?
(iii) Whether the issuance and dishonour of cheque No.
507617 dated 15.12.2021 for .50,000/- establishes the	₹
liability of the defendants for the entire suit amount of
2,50,000/-?	₹
(iv) Whether the suit was barred by limitation, wholly
or partly, and whether the finding of the Ld. Trial Court
on limitation calls for interference?
-- 6 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 7 of 16
(v) Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated
23.09.2025 otherwise suffers from any error of law or
appreciation of evidence warranting interference in first
appeal?
Analysis and Conclusion
16. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that before
examining the individual grounds of appeal, it is necessary to
keep in view the peculiar procedural position in which the suit
came to be decided. The defendants admittedly did not file their
written statement within the prescribed period and their right to
file the same was struck off vide order dated 15.03.2023.
17. Therefore, there was no defense on facts was on record
setting out the defendants stand and version of the transaction
in question. However, the absence of a written statement does
not
per-se relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to establish the
material facts constituting his cause of action. The plaintiff was
still required to prove his claim through cogent evidence his
claims regarding the amount allegedly advanced and the
subsisting liability of the defendants.
18. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Ld. Trial
Court has correctly noticed that even where the right of defense
has been struck off, the defendant is not completely excluded
from the proceedings and is entitled to cross-examine the
plaintiff's witnesses but the defendants through cross-
examination alone cannot introduce their positive defense
-- 7 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 8 of 16
which was never pleaded before the court. Nevertheless, the
admissions, omissions, contradictions and weaknesses elicited
from the plaintiff's own testimony remain relevant for
determining whether the plaintiff has discharged his initial
burden of proof as mandated by law of evidence.
19. Thus, the fact that the defendants did not file a written
statement cannot be treated as an
ipso-facto decree for the
amount claimed in the plaint. Therefore, the germane question
is not merely whether the defendants pleaded a defense for
countering the claim of the plaintiff on facts and as well as legal
grounds but whether the evidence produced by the plaintiff
establishes the particular liability against the defendant for
which the impugned order has been passed.
The first three grounds taken in the objection by the defendants
20. The main grievance of the defendants is that the Ld. Trial
Court decreed the entire sum of .2,50,000/-, although the	₹
documentary evidence did not establish the entire transaction as
claimed by the plaintiff. Perusal of the plaint reveals that it was
pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendants initially required a
loan of .2,00,000/- and that the amount was advanced in the	₹
last week of January 2018 through .1,00,000/- in cash and two	₹
cheques of .50,000/- each and further an additional amount of	₹
.30,000/- was given in May 2018 and .20,000/- in August	₹ ₹
2018, thereby taking the total alleged advance to .2,50,000/-.	₹
-- 8 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 9 of 16
21. However, the documentary evidence as produced by the
plaintiff during the trial reflects that Ex.PW1/1, i.e. the bank
passbook relied upon by the plaintiff, is capable of
corroborating only such transactions as actually find reflection
therein. It cannot
per se prove an alleged cash by itself as the
plaintiff while deposing as PW1, admitted during his cross-
examination that alleged cash payment of .1,00,000/- was	₹
made without the presence of any independent witness.
22. Therefore, there is no oral or documentary evidence
produced by the plaintiff specifically corroborating the
advancing of the said amount in cash to the defendants. This
aspect is important and cannot be ignored as burden was upon
the plaintiff to establish the amount as claimed in the suit by
cogent evidence.
23. It is pertinent to mention that a cash transaction is not legally
incapable of proof merely because it was made in cash, but
where a substantial part of the claimed liability rests exclusively
upon an uncorroborated oral averments then the Court is bound
to minutely scrutinize those. The Ld. Trial Court, in paragraph
14 (line 4) of the impugned order proceeded on the premise that
the bank statement/passbook
‘correlates with the averments of
the plaint’.
24. This finding is broader than what the Ex.PW1/1 itself
establishes because the bank record may corroborate the
amounts which were actually transferred through the bank
-- 9 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 10 of 16
accounts of the plaintiff to the bank account of the defendants
and thus, it cannot be treated as corroboration of the separate
cash component of .1,00,000/- merely because that cash	₹
component is pleaded in the plaint.
25. The next important circumstance is the cheque bearing No.
507617 for .50,000/- dated 15.12.2021, which was admittedly	₹
presented by the plaintiff and dishonoured for insufficiency of
funds. The cheque and return memo are proved through
Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. The issuance of the cheque is
certainly a material circumstance in favour of the plaintiff. It
demonstrates that, at least at the relevant time, a monetary
liability of .50,000/- was represented by the defendants	₹
through the cheque.
26. However, the Ld. Trial Court has gone somewhat too far in
observing in para 14 (line 8) of the impugned judgment that the
cheque
“raises the presumption in favour of the Plaintiff that
there was a legally enforceable debt payable by the Defendants”
and thereafter using that circumstance to support the entire
claim of .2,50,000/-.	₹
27. The statutory presumptions under Section 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act apply to proceedings under that
enactment and cannot be mechanically extended to prove every
disputed aspect of a civil suit for recovery. Even if the
dishonoured cheque is regarded as strong corroborative
evidence of an existing liability at the highest it would establish
-- 10 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 11 of 16
or support the liability to the extent of the cheque amount or
lend support to the existence of the loan transaction. However,
by the virtue of the very cheque it does not conclusively
establish that the defendants were liable to pay the specific sum
of .2,50,000/-.	₹
28. By no stretch of logic the proof of a cheque of .50,000/-	₹
Ex. PW1/2 cannot be called synonymous with proof of the
entire antecedent loan of .2,50,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff	₹
was required to establish all the constituents of the transactions
in question with cogent evidence. The Ld. Trial Court also
observed that the defendants had not explained as to why the
cheque was issued if no loan transaction had taken place.
29. Even, though this circumstance certainly weighs against a
complete denial of the case of the plaintiff by the defendant but
the defendants failure to explain the cheque Ex,PW1/2 cannot
fill every evidentiary gap in the case of the plaintiff. It is well-
established law that the burden to establish the amount claimed
in the suit initially remained upon the plaintiff and the weakness
of the defense cannot automatically become proof of the
plaintiff's positive case.
30. The plaintiff has also relied upon the proceedings of the
complaint case under Section 138 of NI Act, arising out of the
dishonour of the cheque Ex.PW1/2 where the defendants at the
stage of the framing of the notice had admitted receipt of
.1,50,000/- as loan and the same was proved through Ex.PW1/	₹
-- 11 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 12 of 16
i.e. Certified copy of Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C dated 18.10.2023 is,
even such an admission can be read upto the extent of the
liability of .1,50,000/- and not of entire .2,50,000/-.	₹ ₹
31. It cannot be ignored that the alleged cash payment of
.1,00,000/- stands on a materially different footing and the	₹
plaintiff admittedly has not produced any oral or documentary
evidence to prove the same. The bank record Ex.PW1/1 and
Ex.PW1/2 does not prove that cash payment. Thus, the evidence
on record does not justify treating the entire .2,50,000/- as	₹
proved merely because certain components of the transaction
stand established.
32. The other objection of the defendants that the plaintiff
instituted proceedings in respect of the dishonoured cheque only
for .50,000/- is	₹
ex-facie liable to be rejected as it does not
contradict the claim of the plaintiff as made in the present suit
for the reasons that a proceeding under Section 138 NI Act is
founded upon the dishonour of a particular cheque, whereas a
civil suit for recovery may encompass the entire outstanding
debt. Therefore, the institution of proceedings in respect of the
.50,000/- cheque Ex.PW1/2, by itself cannot be regarded as an	₹
admission by the plaintiff that his entire liability was restricted
to .50,000/-.	₹
33. Though, Ex. PW1/7 corroborating a liability of the
defendants for the sum of .1,50,000/- as an admission but	₹
-- 12 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 13 of 16
however, it cannot be extended beyond the contents of the
admission to prove an amount which was never admitted.
34. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion the plaintiff
is able to prove the liability of the defendants upto the extent of
.1,50,000/- but the amount of .1,00,000/- allegedly given in	₹ ₹
cash cannot be proved. Therefore, the defendants in the present
appeal are succeeds to the limited extent that the Ld. Trial Court
did not sufficiently distinguish between the amount
affirmatively corroborated by the documentary evidence and the
amount given in cash, therefore, the finding of the Ld. Trial
Court that the plaintiff had established his entitlement to the
entire .2,50,000/- is consequently not sustainable in its present	₹
form.
35. The last question is that upto which extent the impugned
order requires interference. The evidence on record if read as a
whole doesn’t justify the concluding findings as recorded by the
Ld. Trial Court as the plaintiff has merely established the
existence of a financial transaction between the parties. The
bank record Ex.PW1/1 supports the amounts reflected therein,
the dishonoured cheque Ex.PW1/2 constitutes significant
corroborative material, and the proceedings arising from the
dishonour of the cheque provide further support to the existence
of liability at least to the extent established therein.
36. The defendants, on the other hand, have not produced any
evidence showing that the cheque was issued towards a wholly
-- 13 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 14 of 16
unrelated transaction or that the amount admittedly reflected
through the documentary/judicial record had already been
discharged. Their cross-examination of PW1 also does not
completely demolish the plaintiff's case.
37. At the same time, the Court cannot grant a decree merely
because the defendants failed to establish their defense. As it is
trite the case of the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and it
cannot be draw any strength from the weaknesses of the defense
of the defendants. In the present case, the evidence does not
satisfactorily establish the fact of giving part loan of
.1,00,000/- allegedly paid in cash in January 2018.	₹
38. Therefore, the decree for .2,50,000/- cannot be sustained	₹
in its entirety, though, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the
amount which stands established from the documentary and oral
evidence. Ergo, this Court is holding that on the material
available on record, the amount of .1,50,000/-	₹ stands
sufficiently established, whereas the remaining .1,00,000/-	₹
rests principally upon the bald averments of the plaintiff and has
not been proved by the cogent evidence.
39. Therefore, this impugned order calls for its partial
modification and not complete reversal of the same.
Accordingly, the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the plaintiff
had established a liability of the defendants is upheld, but the
quantum of the decree is reduced from .2,50,000/- to	₹
.1,50,000/- with 6% simple interest from the date of the	₹
-- 14 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 15 of 16
institution of the suit till the making of the payment of entire
amount by the defendants.
Relief
40. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the
defendants is
partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated
23.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent
Controller (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS No.
498/2022, ‘
Bhudev Singh vs Gulshan Malik & Anr’ is modified
to the following extent, that
(i) The decree for .2,50,000/- in favour of	₹
the plaintiff is modified and reduced to
.1,50,000/-	₹
,
(ii) The defendants shall be jointly and
severally liable to pay .1,50,000/- to the	₹
plaintiff,
(iii) The said amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from 02.06.2022, i.e.
the date of institution of the suit, till its
realization,
41. It is necessary to mention that the observations made herein
are confined to adjudication of the present appeal and shall not
be construed as an adjudication upon any independent
proceedings arising out of dishonour of the cheque, except to
the limited extent necessary for determining the civil liability in
the present appeal.
42. The Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of
this judgment.
-- 15 of 16 --
RCA DJ No. 88/2025 CNR No. DLET01-006695-2025 Gulshan Malik & Ors. Vs. Bhudev Singh Page No. 16 of 16
43. The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due
compliances.
Announced in the open court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
on September 29th, 2026 District Judge-04/East District
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
-- 16 of 16 --