Final Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: Suit No 803/23 Pg 1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF AYUSH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution of Suit: October 10th, 2023
Reserved on: July 30th, 2026
Pronounced on: August 3rd, 2026
SUIT NO: 803/23
IN THE MATTER OF: -
M/S SHRI PARASNATH PRINTS
THROUGH ITS AR/PARTNER
SH. SANCHIT JAIN
A-434, A BLOCK, MEET NAGAR
SHAHDARA, DELHI—110093 ...PLAINTIFF
Through: Mr. L.G. Dass,
Advocate.
VERSUS
KAAFIL AHMAD @ VICKY
R/O: 64, GROUND FLOOR
KHASRA NO. 13/2, 13/4
MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI—110091 ...DEFENDANT
Through: None.
Ex- PARTE JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery of a sum of
Rs. 2,13,092/- along with past, pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per
annum and costs of the proceedings.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts, as set out in the plaint, are as follows:
2.1 The plaintiff and the defendant are engaged in the business of
-- 1 of 5 --
Suit No 803/23 Pg 2 of 5
dealing in cut pieces of cloth. It is the plaintiff’s case that, in the ordinary
course of business, the defendant purchased cut pieces of cloth from the
plaintiff on various occasions and made part payments towards the
invoices from time to time.
2.2 It is averred that in November 2020, the accounts between the
parties were settled, whereupon a sum of Rs. 2,13,092/- was found due and
payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. In discharge of the said
outstanding liability, the defendant issued cheque bearing No. 000117
dated 23.11.2020 for a sum of Rs. 2,13,092/-, drawn on HDFC Bank,
Mayur Vihar Branch, Delhi, in favour of the plaintiff.
2.3 The plaintiff presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment with his
banker. However, the cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid with
the remarks “Payment Stopped by Drawer”, vide cheque return memo
dated 05.12.2020.
2.4 Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 12.12.2020 under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881, calling upon the
defendant to make payment of the cheque amount. Despite receipt of the
notice, the defendant failed to discharge the outstanding liability.
Consequently, the plaintiff instituted the present suit.
RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
3. Summons of the suit were duly served upon the defendant, who
entered appearance through counsel on 06.02.2025. However, thereafter,
the defendant neither appeared before the court nor filed a written
statement to contest the suit. Consequently, vide orders dated 05.05.2025
and 01.09.2025, the defence of the defendant was struck off and he was
proceeded against ex-parte respectively.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined its partner Mr. Sanchit
-- 2 of 5 --
Suit No 803/23 Pg 3 of 5
Jain, as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A
and relied upon the following documents viz.—Registration certificate of
partnership firm of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/1; Authority letter Mark A;
Account settlement Ex. PW1/2; Certified copy of cheque Ex. PW1/3;
Certified copy of cheque returning memo Ex. PW1/4; Certified copy of
legal notice with postal receipts Ex. PW1/5; and Certified copy of envelope
received back Ex. PW1/6.
5. Vide order dated 22.05.2026, ex-parte PE was closed.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Mr. L.G. Dass, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the
plaintiff had been supplying cut pieces of cloth to the defendant in the
ordinary course of business. Upon reconciliation of accounts between the
parties, a sum of Rs. 2,13,092/- was found due and outstanding against the
defendant. He submitted that, in discharge of the said liability, the
defendant issued the cheque in question, which got dishonoured on
05.12.2020. He further submitted that although the defendant has been
acquitted in the proceedings under the NI Act, an appeal against the said
judgment is presently pending. It was argued that the acquittal in the
criminal proceedings does not, by itself, bind a civil court, as the two
proceedings are independent and governed by different standards of proof.
Lastly, he contended that despite due service of summons, the defendant
neither appeared before this court nor filed any written statement to contest
or dispute the plaintiff’s claim.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
7. I have heard the submissions and carefully perused the record. PW1
has deposed on oath in line with the averments made in the plaint. In
support of his claim, the plaintiff has placed on record the statement of
account [Ex. PW1/2 (colly)] along with the certified copy of the cheque in
-- 3 of 5 --
Suit No 803/23 Pg 4 of 5
question and the cheque return memo, to establish that a sum of Rs.
2,13,092/- remained due and payable by the defendant. The acquittal of the
defendant in the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, does
not, by itself, operate as res judicata or issue estoppel in the present
proceedings. It is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are
independent. A prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act is a criminal
proceeding requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a
civil suit is decided on the preponderance of probabilities1.
8. It is also pertinent to note that, despite due service of summons, the
defendant neither filed a written statement nor cross-examined PW1. As a
result, the plaintiff’s evidence has remained wholly unrebutted and
unchallenged. In the absence of any cross-examination or rebuttal by the
defendant, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of plaintiff.
9. The present suit has been instituted within the prescribed period of
limitation, computed from the date of dishonour of the cheque i.e.
05.12.2020. This Court also possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain
and adjudicate the present suit, as the defendant resides within the
territorial jurisdiction of this court and a part of the cause of action also
arose within its jurisdiction.
RELIEF
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed for an amount of Rs. 2,13,092/-. The plaintiff has sought interest
@ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization of
amount. In the opinion of this court, the rate of interest is excessive and
also not in consonance with the prevailing market rate of interest.
Accordingly, interest @ 7% per annum is granted to the plaintiff from the
1 Prameela Varghese v. Abraham Samuel 2026: KER: 57049
-- 4 of 5 --
Suit No 803/23 Pg 5 of 5
date of filing of the suit till realization of the amount.
11. Costs of the suit are awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet
be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due
compliance.
Pronounced in open court
on August 3rd 2026 (AYUSH SHARMA)
CJ/EAST/KARKARDOOMA
DELHI/03.08.2026
This judgment contains 5 pages and each page has been signed by me.
-- 5 of 5 --