Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLND03-002613-2023
CS No. 1470/2023
SUKHBIR SINGH
S/o Sh. Rameshwar
House No. 67, Extension 1- B
Nangloi, New Delhi-110041 . . . Plaintiff
Versus
NEELKANTH CHHATRIA
Lt. Gen, Raj Shukla (Retd.)
(Driver of Hon’ble Member UPSC)
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi- 110069
. . . Defendant
Date of Institution : 17.10.2023
Date of Reserving Judgment : 14.11.2023
Date of Judgment : 14.11.2023
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,00,000/- ALONG WITH
PENDENTE
LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present suit, the Plaintiff has sought recovery of
money by way of decree for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with
pendente-lite
CS No. 1470/2023
Sukhbir Singh VS. Neelkanth Chhatria Page No. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
and future interest @ 12%
per annum against the Defendant along with cost.
2. Brief facts as alleged in the plaint and documents filed by the
Plaintiff are that the Plaintiff and Defendant were working together in Union
Public Service Commission (UPSC) and had a friendly relations. It is stated
that Plaintiff had retired from service on 31.10.2017 and received monetary
benefits from UPSC. The Defendant approached Plaintiff on 06.11.2017 for a
loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- and, considering friendly relations with him, Plaintiff
agreed to lend the same to the Defendant. Plaintiff handed over Rs. 50,000/-
in cash on 06.11.2017 itself, Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash on 13.11.2017 and Rs.
1,50,000/- was given by cheque which was duly cleared on 13.11.2017.
3. It is further stated that on 15.11.2020, Plaintiff requested
Defendant to repay the above stated loan amount but Defendant cited
financial trouble due to COVID-19 Pandemic. It is further stated that in
November, 2021, Defendant issued a post-dated cheque for an amount of Rs.
50,000/- towards the partial discharge of his liability in question for
encashment but same was returned for the reason “Account Closed”. It is
stated that on 01.07.2023, Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the loan
amount, however Defendant paying no heed to the Plaintiff’s lawful demand,
blatantly refused to discharge the said liability. A Legal Demand Notice dated
20.07.2023 was also issued to the Defendant in this regard but the Defendant
failed to make the payment to the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff was
CS No. 1470/2023
Sukhbir Singh VS. Neelkanth Chhatria Page No. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
constrained to file the present suit seeking recovery.
4. Summons for settlement of issues was served upon the
Defendant and appearance was entered through Counsel on 18.12.2023.
However, none appeared on behalf of the Defendant thereafter and fresh
summons was issued. Appearance was again entered on 06.06.2024, when
adjournment was sought. Thereafter, the Defendant stopped appearing and
his right to file Written Statement was closed on 03.08.2024 and he was
accordingly proceeded ex-parte by order dated 29.10.2024.
5. In order to prove the case, Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1
and tendered his Evidence by way of Affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 wherein he
reiterated the submissions made in the plaint and relied upon the documents
as under:
a) Copy of Statement of Account is Ex. PW-1/A(OSR).
b) Certified Copy of Cheque Bearing No. 131406 is Ex. PW-1/B.
c) Certified Copy of Returning Memo dated 30.06.2023 is Ex.
PW-1/C
d) Legal Notice dated 20.07.2023 along with Postal Receipts dated
20.07.2023 is Ex. PW-1/D(Colly).
e) Internet Generated Postal Delivery Report is Ex. PW-1/E.
CS No. 1470/2023
Sukhbir Singh VS. Neelkanth Chhatria Page No. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
6. No other witness was sought to be summoned or examined by
the Plaintiff. Accordingly, ex-parte evidence was closed on 29.10.2024.
7. I have heard the Plaintiff and have gone through the record.
8. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/-
against the Defendant. This Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the present suit. Further, Plaintiff had relied upon the judgment dated
17.11.2011 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in RFA 594/2002 titled as
“
Anil Kumar Sunil Kumar v. Asha Rastogi” , to argue that the present suit is
within limitation as no date was fixed for repayment of the debt.
9. Paragraph 9 of the above judgment is quoted hereunder for
reference:
“9. Thus, next issue is the first issue as to whether the suit
was barred by limitation. The trial Court has referred to
Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to hold the suit as
barred by limitation because it was held that the suit for
recovery of loan has to be filed within three years from the
date when the loan is granted. In my opinion, this finding of
the trial Court is also incorrect inasmuch as it is not that in all
cases of loan the suit has to be filed within three years of
grant of the loan inasmuch as a loan can be given for more
than three years and therefore it cannot be urged that suit for
recovery of loan has necessarily to be filed only within three
years. What has to be seen are the facts and circumstances of
each case as to the period for which the loan is granted. In
CS No. 1470/2023
Sukhbir Singh VS. Neelkanth Chhatria Page No. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
the present case, it has come on record that the loan was not
granted for any fixed period, and therefore, recovery of such
loans would fall under Article 113 of the Limitation Act,
1963 because cause of action for such loan arises when the
cause of action accrues and the cause of action accrues when
a demand for payment is made.”
10. PW-1 has tendered in his evidence documents i.e. Copy of
Statement of Account is Ex. PW-1/A(OSR), Certified Copy of cheque is
Ex. PW1/B, Certified Copy of Returning Memo dated 30.06.2023 is
Ex. PW1/C and Internet Generated Postal Delivery Report is Ex. PW-1/E,
clearly establishing the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Neither the witness was cross-examined nor any other evidence was led on
behalf of the Defendant who was proceeded ex-parte due to non-appearance.
Hence, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the assertions of the Plaintiff,
which leads to a necessary inference that Defendant has failed to make the
payment due to the Plaintiff.
11. Keeping in view the un-rebutted testimony of PW-1 and
documents relied upon, it can be said that the Plaintiff has duly established
the case that Defendant have unlawfully withheld the amount of
Rs. 3,00,000/- due to the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff is entitled to recover
from the Defendant.
12. The Plaintiff has also sought
pendente-lite and future interest @
12%
per annum. However, considering the mandate of Section 34 CPC, in the
CS No. 1470/2023
Sukhbir Singh VS. Neelkanth Chhatria Page No. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, Plaintiff is awarded
pendente-lite interest @ 9 % per annum and future interest @ 6% per annum
from date of decree till the date of realization of the decretal amount.
13. In view of the above discussion, therefore, the suit of the
Plaintiff is decreed. The plaintiff is awarded decree for recovery of
Rs. 3,00,000/- along with pendente-lite interest @ 9% per annum and
future interest @ 6% per annum from date of decree till the date of
realization of the decretal amount.
14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
16.
Pronounced by me in the open Court
on 14.11.2024.
(VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGH)
Civil Judge, New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
CS No. 1470/2023
Sukhbir Singh VS. Neelkanth Chhatria Page No. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --