Final Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MR. SATYABRATA PANDA, ADJ-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS no.323 of 2021
Date of institution:24.08.2021
Date of arguments: 25.07.2023
Date of judgment: 25.07.2023
Kartar Singh S/O Late Sh. Ram Singh
R/O Flat No.34, B.K. Dutt Colony
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rajiv Vohra (DEAD)
His Lr's
1. Ms. Anju Vohra
W/O Late Sh. Rajiv Vohra (WIFE)
2. Ritvik Vohra
S/O Late Sh. Rajiv Vohra (SON)
3. Rishabh Vohra
S/O Late Sh. Rajiv Vohra (SON)
All R/O Q No.6/8,
Railway Colony,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi-110007
............Defendants
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the estate of late Sh. Rajiv
Vohra represented by his legal representatives who are the defendants
herein for recovery of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with interest.
2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is as follows. It is stated
that the plaintiff retired from Northern Railway as Senior Auditor. The
CS NO.323/21 KARTAR SINGH VS. RAJIV VOHRA PAGE NO.1
-- 1 of 4 --
defendant was serving as Accountant in accounts branch Baroda House,
New Delhi and the plaintiff was also serving as Senior Auditor at
Baroda House, New Delhi and knew each other and were having cordial
relations. Late Sh. Rajiv Vohra S/o Sh. Rattan Lal Vohra needed money
for purchase of a house for his younger brother namely Sh. Rahul Vohra
and requested for loan of Rs.7 lacs. The plaintiff had paid a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- on 04.06.2018 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.06.2018, and
another Rs.2,000,00/- on 27.07.2018, and total amount of Rs.
7,000,00/- was paid to Sh. Rajiv Vohra. Sh. Rajiv Vohra had issued three
post dated Cheques bearing No. 435356 dated 03.11.2019 for sum of
Rs.3,000,00/- and cheque bearing No.435347 dated 05.12.2019 and
cheque bearing No.570022 dated 13.12.2019 both for sum of
Rs.2,000,00/-each against the loan amount and assured that all the
cheques would be cleared upon presentation. However, Sh. Rajiv Vohra
died on 18.01.2020. So, the plaintiff did not present the aforesaid
cheques. He left three legal heirs namely Smt. Anju Vohra (wife), Ritvik
Vohra (son) and Rishab Vohra (son), who are the defendants herein. The
plaintiff requested the wife of Late Sh. Rajiv Vohra to return the loan
amount. But she did not return/pay the loan amount. The plaintiff sent a
legal notice on 13.04.2021 to all the legal heirs of Sh. Rajiv Vohra
through his counsel and requested to pay the money. The defendants
failed to make the payment of Rs.7,000,00/- despite service of the legal
notice. On this basis, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
3. Although the suit was initially filed as a summary suit, it was converted
into an ordinary suit subsequently upon the statement of the ld. counsel
for the plaintiff. The defendants were duly served in the suit but failed to
appear and were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16/08/2022.
CS NO.323/21 KARTAR SINGH VS. RAJIV VOHRA PAGE NO.2
-- 2 of 4 --
4. The plaintiff’s evidence was led ex parte. The plaintiff has examined
himself as PW1 and has tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A in
which he has deposed along the lines of the plaint. He has relied upon
following documents:
(i) Original three cheques bearing no.435356, 445347 and 570022
are Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
(ii) Copy of statement of account is marked as Mark A.
(iii) Legal Notice and postal receipts are Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
(iv) Copy of reply of notice is marked as Mark B.
5. The plaintiff also examined a common friend Mr. Rajesh Kumar as PW2
who has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW2/A.
6. I have considered the ex parte submissions of the ld. counsel for the
plaintiff and I have perused the record.
7. The defendants have failed to appear despite service and have been
proceeded ex-parte in the suit. Thus, there is no defence in the suit. The
averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint are as such unrebutted by
the defendants. The plaintiff's evidence both oral as well as documentary
also remains unchallenged. The plaintiff as PW1 has testified on the
lines of the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff has also
examined PW2 Mr. Rajesh Kr. Kalra who has deposed that he was
working in Northern Railway, Baroda House and that the plaintiff and
Late Sh. Rajiv Vohra were his friends. He has deposed that Late Sh.
Rajiv Vohra had requested for loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff in
his presence. He has further deposed that the plaintiff had given
CS NO.323/21 KARTAR SINGH VS. RAJIV VOHRA PAGE NO.3
-- 3 of 4 --
Rs.7,00,000/- as loan to late Sh. Rajiv Vohra and that as re-payment late
Sh. Rajiv Vohra had given the three post dated cheques for total sum of
Rs.7,00,000/- to the plaintiff in his presence. The oral testimony led by
the plaintiff is unchallenged. The defendants have failed to appear
despite service and there is no reason why they would not appear if they
had any valid defence to the suit. On a balance of probabilities, on the
basis of ex-parte evidence led, the plaintiff has been able to prove his
case that he had given an amount of Rs.7 lacs as loan to Late Sh. Rajiv
Vohra and would accordingly be entitled to claim recovery of Rs.7 lacs
from the estate of the deceased Sh. Rajiv Vohra in the hands of his LRs.
It would be reasonable to grant plaintiff interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of filing of the suit till actual realization.
8. Accordingly, decree is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the estate
of Late Sh. Rajiv Vohra in the hands of his legal representatives who are
the defendants herein. It is clarified that the liability of the defendants
herein would be limited to the estate of Late Sh.Rajiv Vohra which has
come into their hands. Costs are decreed in favour of plaintiff. Let
decree-sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Judgment pronounced in the open court.
(SATYABRATA PANDA)
Additional District Judge-04
Judge Code- DL01057
PHC/New Delhi/25.07.2023
CS NO.323/21 KARTAR SINGH VS. RAJIV VOHRA PAGE NO.4
-- 4 of 4 --