Final Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLET030000472023
CS SCJ No.25/23
SHRI BHUSHAN JAIN
S/O SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN
R/o 19/94, KALYAN PURI, DELHI-110091.
…..Plaintiff
Versus
SHRI RANJEET
S/O SHRI RAMJI LAL
R/o 10/162, KHICHRIPUR, DELHI-110091
……...Defendant
Date of Institution 10.01.2023
Date of conclusion of arguments 06.08.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 06.08.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RUPEES 80,000/- (EIGHTY
THOUSAND RUPEES ONLY)
JUDGMENT
CS SCJ 25/2023
	Bhushan Jain vs Ranjeet 1
/ 5
-- 1 of 5 --
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of
Rs. 80,000/- from the defendant.
2. The factual matrix of the present case, as set forth in the plaint,
is that the plaintiff is well known to the defendant. It is stated that the
defendant approached the plaintiff and requested for friendly loan of
Rs. 80,000/- as defendant was in dire need of money and assured that
the said loan amount will be returned in the first week of May 2022.
It is averred that considering the relation with defendant, plaintiff
gave Rs. 80,000/- in cash to defendant and executed a receipt dated
15.02.2022 in this regard.
3. It is alleged that when in the first week of May, 2022, the
defendant had not paid the loan amount to the plaintiff then the
plaintiff contacted the defendant and asked to make the payment but
the defendant avoided returning the loan amount on one pretext or
the other. It is averred that in the last week of May, 2022, the
defendant flatly refused to pay the said loan amount. The plaintiff,
therefore, served a legal notice dated 30.05.2022 but the same was
neither replied nor complied with by the defendant. The defendant is
liable to return the loan amount of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith interest @
12% per annum from the date of receipt of legal notice till its
realisation. Hence the present suit.
4. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks the following
reliefs:
CS SCJ 25/2023
	Bhushan Jain vs Ranjeet 2
/ 5
-- 2 of 5 --
i. A money decree in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum.
ii. Costs of the suit.
5. Summons of settlement of issues of the present suit were duly
served upon the defendant through publication in the newspaper
“Veer Arjun” dated 13.09.2024. However, neither any written
statement was filed within the stipulated period nor did anyone
appear on behalf of the defendant, consequently the defendant was
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.01.2025. The case was,
thereafter, listed for ex-parte plaintiff's evidence.
6. In ex-parte PE, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 vide his
duly sworn in affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/1. In his testimony,
following documents are exhibited:-
S No. Particular Exhibit
1. Original receipt regarding
transaction between the parties.
Ex.PW1/A
2. Copy of legal notice dated
30.05.2022
Ex.PW-1/B
3. Original postal receipt Ex.PW-1/C
7. As defendant is ex-parte and no other witness was examined
by plaintiff, ex-parte PE was closed and matter was listed for exparte
final arguments.
8. I have carefully perused the record and heard the arguments by
CS SCJ 25/2023
	Bhushan Jain vs Ranjeet 3
/ 5
-- 3 of 5 --
ld counsel for the plaintiff.
Findings and Analysis
9. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had given a
friendly loan of Rs. 80,000/- to the defendant as he was in dire need
of funds, and that the defendant has not returned the said loan
amount. The receipt regarding the transaction between the parties
(Ex.PW1/A) and the legal notice (Ex.PW-1/B) corroborate the
plaintiff’s claim regarding the loan granted to the defendant, and the
defendant’s failure to respond or make payment despite receipt of
summons of the present suit indicates willful default and evasion of
liability.
10. Moreover, it is significant to note that the testimony of PW-1
remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Despite the issuance of
summons, the defendant failed to appear before the court and did not
file any written statement within the stipulated time. This conduct
strongly suggests that the defendant lacked any valid defence. The
court, therefore, finds no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1,
which was given under oath and remained uncontested.
11. In light of the unrebutted testimony of the witness produced by
the plaintiff and the documentary evidence on record, the plaintiff
has successfully proved his claim for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- which
remains due from the defendant.
12. The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 12% per annum from the
CS SCJ 25/2023
	Bhushan Jain vs Ranjeet 4
/ 5
-- 4 of 5 --
date of receipt of the legal notice till realisation. However, having
regard to the nature of the transaction being a friendly/interest-free
loan as pleaded in the plaint itself, and in the absence of any agreed
rate of interest between the parties, the plaintiff is not found entitled
to any pre-suit interest.
13. As regards the rate of interest, 12% per annum is considered
excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. A rate of 6% per
annum is considered just, fair and reasonable for the pendente lite
and future period.
Conclusion
14. In the upshot of above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed and the defendant is held liable to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/-
to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @ 6%
per annum on the said amount from the date of institution of the suit
till realization.
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
compliance.
Announced in the open court
on 06.08.2026
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC
East District, KKD Courts,
Delhi/06.08.2026
CS SCJ 25/2023
	Bhushan Jain vs Ranjeet 5
/ 5
-- 5 of 5 --