Order 17

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA, DISTRICT
JUDGE-01, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
EX 17/25
CNR No. DLNE01-000510-2025
RAJESH GUPTA Vs. ANJALI
Sh. Rajesh Gupta
S/o Sh. Gauri Shankar Gupta
R/o T-135/A, Gali no. 9,
Gautam Puri, Garhi Mendu,
North-East, Delhi-110053. ….. Decree Holder
versus
Smt. Anjali
W/o Sh. Yogender Singh
R/o H. No. X-120, Gali no. 12,
Brahmpuri, Delhi-110053 ….. Judgment Debtor
29.05.2026
File taken up today as 28.05.2026 was declared a holiday.
Present: Ld. Counsel for decree holder through V.C with decree
holder in person.
None for JD.
Passover sought to deposit previous cost.
Arguments in terms of order dated 25.04.2026 heard.
List for orders during course of day.
Aashish Gupta
DJ-01/NE/KKD/DELHI
29.05.2026
-- 1 of 11 --
At 2:30 PM
Present: Decree holder in person.
None for JD.
Decree holder has appeared physically and has prayed for
reduction of cost. At his request, the cost is reduced to Rs. 1500/-. He
again seeks passover to deposit the said cost. It be deposited during
course of day.
Aashish Gupta
DJ-01/NE/KKD/DELHI
29.05.2026
At 4:00 PM
Present: None.
1. Decree holder is before this Court seeking execution of money
decree. During the proceedings in this case, it transpired that
decree holder herein has filed multiple civil and criminal
litigations against various individuals claiming that he has
advanced friendly loan to each one of them.
2. This led to passing of order dated 17.11.2025 calling upon the
decree holder to file details of the said cases. The said order
reads as under:-
"Let decree holder file an affidavit detailing how
many civil and criminal cases have been filed by DH against
different individuals across Delhi and the status of the said cases.
DH shall also indicate the grounds on the basis of which he has
filed the said cases.
This is view of the fact that recently in an another case
bearing No. CS 304/25 titled as ‘Rajesh Gupta Vs. Seema Jain’,
it was found by this Court that decree holder is essentially a
money lender. The present case is an execution for recovery of
money and it appears that it shall also involve a question as to
whether the decree herein is executable or not in view of
provisions of Punjab Registration of Money Lenders’ Act, 1938.
List on 09.12.2025."
(emphasis supplied)
-- 2 of 11 --
3. Eventually, an affidavit in terms of the above direction was filed
in execution no. 18/25 (which was being taken up together with
the present execution). The case file of CS No. 304/25 was also
called and an affidavit filed in the said case was exhibited as
Ex. X1 was taken on record in execution no. 18/25.
4. No affidavit in terms of the above order dated 17.11.2025 was
filed by DH in this case and after much persuasions, an affidavit
dated 07.04.2026 was filed.
5. It appears that the present matter was being taken up together
with execution no. 18/25 and common orders were being passed
in the two matters.
6. It was in execution no. 18/25, a show cause notice vide order
dated 24.01.2026 was issued which gave an impression that a
show cause notice has been issued in this case also.
7. This led the DH to file a reply to show cause in this case also.
8. Be that as it may, it is clarified that no show cause notice was
issued in this case to the DH.
9. Now, as per the affidavit dated 07.04.2026 filed in this case, it
transpires that the decree holder has filed as many as 27 cases
(with 11 civil cases/execution petitions against different
individuals and as many as 16 criminal cases against various
persons; with their being overlap of only two to three
individuals qua the civil cases). The same is evident from the
table available in his affidavit dated 07.04.2026.
10.Considering the above cases, an order dated 25.04.2026 was
passed which reads as under:-
-- 3 of 11 --
1. Decree holder has filed at least two affidavits in the present
execution detailing various litigations filed by him in District Courts,
Delhi and a perusal of the same shows that at least 27 civil/criminal
litigations have been filed by decree holder inter alia based on
friendly loans advanced by him to different persons.
2. It is pertinent to note that in a separate suit bearing No. CS 304/25
titled as 'Rajesh Gupta Vs. Seema Jain' it was found by the Court that
decree holder is essentially a money lender and therefore direction
was given to decree holder to disclose various litigations filed by him
on the ground of friendly loan.
3. Prima facie it appears that plaintiff herein is operating as a money
lender.
4. Under Punjab Registration of Money Lenders’ Act, 1938, a money
lender is required to be registered under the said Act and without
such registration, the execution of a decree may not lie. The said Act
is also applicable in Delhi and as such parties are called upon to
clarify if the decree in question is hit by the provisions of the said
Act, as there appears to be no registration of decree holder under the
said Act. In case decree holder holds any such registration, he is at
liberty to place it on record before next date of hearing.
5. List for arguments on the aforesaid aspect and for consideration on
the point of show cause issued to him on 24.01.2026.
6. List on 08.05.2026.
11.Now, considering the order dated 25.04.2026 (on the
maintainability of the execution petition) arguments have been
heard today.
12.At the outset, I may note that despite opportunity, decree holder
has not placed on record any registration certificate that decree
holder may have under the provisions of Punjab Registration of
Money Lenders Act, 1938. Thus, it can be safely assumed that
decree holder does not hold any such registration.
13.Before coming to the facts of the case, I may note that another
civil suit bearing CS no. 304/25 titled as ‘Rajesh Gupta vs.
Seema Gupta’ was rejected by this court and the said order
dated 13.10.2025 reads as under:-
1. On 02.09.2025, following order was passed in this case.
“Present: Ms. Sakshi Jain and Sh. Vihan Chaudhary,
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff with plaintiff.
-- 4 of 11 --
Plaintiff has filed an affidavit detailing various litigations
filed by him in District Courts, Delhi and a perusal of the same shows
that apart from the present case, at least 11 other civil litigations have
been filed by the plaintiff based on friendly loans advanced by him to
different persons.
Prima facie it appears that plaintiff herein is operating as a
money lender. On Court query, it transpires that other litigations U/S
138 NI Act were also filed by plaintiff across Courts in Delhi and such
details are not mentioned in the affidavit filed before this Court today.
Let plaintiff file an affidavit in this regard on next date. He
is also directed to specify the amount given to one Yoginder Kumar
(stated at S.No. 3(7) of his affidavit filed today).
He is also directed to comply with last order qua payment
of cost. Under Punjab Registration of Money Lenders’ Act, 1938, a
money lender is required to be registered under the said Act and
without such registration, the suit of the money lender is liable to fail
U/S 3 of the said Act. The said Act is also applicable in Delhi and as
such plaintiff is called upon to clarify as to why the present suit should
not fail as their appears to be no registration of plaintiff under the said
Act. List on 15.09.2025.”
2. Despite repeated directions, plaintiff has not filed an additional
affidavit detailing the cases filed by him U/S 138 NI Act in various
Court in Delhi with respect to cheques received by him for money
lent by him to the persons issuing the cheques. He has not even paid
the cost imposed vide order dated 29.08.2025.
3. As is evident from the bare perusal of the order dated 02.09.2025, it
prima facie appeared to the Court that plaintiff herein is a money
lender within the meaning of Punjab Registration of Money Lenders’
Act 1938 and therefore, in light of Section 3 of the said Act, the
present suit may be liable to fail.
4. Despite opportunity, neither the plaintiff has produced any money
lending license under the said Act nor has he complied with order
dated 29.08.2025 (qua payment of cost) and 02.09.2025 (qua filing
of details of cases filed by plaintiff against various individuals U/S
138 NI Act).
5. Submissions on behalf of plaintiff in terms of order dated 02.09.2025
heard.
6. No cogent answer was given by the Counsel for plaintiff for non-
compliance of the aforesaid orders.
7. It is pertinent to note that on 02.09.2025, plaintiff had filed one
affidavit in Court detailing eleven civil cases (including the present
case) filed by him against various individuals. All the said cases are
stated to be for recovery of money based on friendly loans advanced
by plaintiff to different persons.
8. It is pertinent to note that U/S 3 of Punjab Registration of Money
Lenders’ Act, 1938 (which is also applicable to Delhi), a suit by a
money lender for the recovery of a loan is liable to be dismissed
unless the money lender, at the time of institution of the suit is
-- 5 of 11 --
registered under the said Act and also holds a valid license under the
said Act.
9. Plaintiff has set up a case herein claiming that he gave friendly loan
to defendant in two transactions.
10. The first transaction is of Rs. One Lac with plaintiff giving Rs.
50,000/- through cheque and another Rs. 50,000/- through cash on
13.01.2025. The said loan is stated to be for a period of two months
and a written agreement in this regard is stated to have also been
executed between the parties.
11. The second transaction is of Rs. 3 Lac with plaintiff giving Rs. 1.5
lac through cheque and another Rs. 1.5 lac through cash on
10.03.2025. The said loan is stated to be for a period of two months
and a written agreement in this regard is stated to have also been
executed between the parties.
12. Plaintiff claims that despite expiry of the period of loan, defendant
has not repaid the money.
13. Now, even though plaintiff has claimed that the said amount was a
friendly loan, it is evident from the transaction that the said loan, in
substance was actually a loan with interest and not a friendly loan.
14. This is because, plaintiff is evidently giving part amount in cash and
the remaining part through banking channels. This happens for both
the transactions and to keep proof of the same, a written agreement is
stated to have also been executed between the parties. This claim of
giving of cash amount is essentially the interest component which the
plaintiff sought to cover and protect by a written agreement between
the parties and in fact only the money given through banking
channels is the money which was given by the plaintiff to defendant.
15. Under the Punjab Registration Money Lenders’ Act, 1938, the term
‘loan’ is defined in Section 2 (8) and it means an advance, whether
secured or unsecured, of money or in kind at interest and shall
include any transaction which the Court finds to be in substance a
loan.
16. In the present case, the manner in which the transactions are being
set up, the cash component thereof are in substance the interest
payable by defendant qua the money given through banking channels
and thus, in substance, plaintiff herein has given loan as a money
lender to defendant. He has not produced any money lending license
under the said Act in his favour.
17. Even if it is taken that the entire money of Rs. 4 lac was given by
plaintiff to defendant in the manner claimed, still, in my humble
opinion, the transaction between the parties was actually a loan
transaction within the meaning of Section 2 (8) of the Punjab
Registration of Money Lenders’ Act, 1938.
18. The fact that he has filed at least 11 civil cases against different
individuals in Delhi and has not disclosed the number of cases filed
U/S 138 NI Act clearly shows that plaintiff is essentially working as
a money lender (defined U/S 2 (9) of the aforesaid Act) and thus, was
required to hold a license under the said Act before maintaining a suit
for recovery against the defendant.
-- 6 of 11 --
19. In my humble opinion, if I take a holistic view of the entire record,
the present suit is liable to be dismissed in light of the bar of Section
3 of the aforesaid Act as the loan given by the plaintiff is a loan
within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and plaintiff is a money
lender within the meaning of the said Act. Therefore, before plaintiff
can seek recovery, he should have a registration under the said Act
and the license under the said Act should be valid on the date of
institution of the present suit.
20. Since none of the said conditions are met in the present case,
therefore, the present suit is barred by law.
21. Accordingly, the plaint herein is rejected U/O VII Rule 11 (d) CPC.
22. Let a decree sheet be prepared.
23. File be consigned to Record Room.
14.A bare perusal of the above order shows that despite directions
to the decree holder to file details of the cases filed U/S 138 NI
Act, 1881, decree holder never filed any such details and the
Court rejected the plaint inter alia holding that based on the
affidavit filed therein, decree holder was a money lender and his
recovery suit was barred by law.
15.The said order, admittedly was never challenged and has
attained finality.
16.Now, when the present execution came for adjudication, as
noted above, decree holder was asked to file an affidavit
detailing civil and criminal cases filed by him against different
individuals. This was vide order dated 17.11.2025.
17.The affidavit filed in response thereto is dated 07.04.2026.
18.A bare perusal of the same would show that in the said affidavit,
decree holder gave details of 27 civil and criminal cases .
19.Each one of them are essentially
friendly loans.
20.No arguments were addressed by the Counsel for decree holder
about the applicability of provisions of Punjab Registration of
Money Lenders Act, 1938 to the present execution petition.
-- 7 of 11 --
21.As already noted, as per the final affidavit of decree holder filed
before this Court dated 05.02.2026, as many as 27 cases have
been filed by decree holder against various individuals. All the
said cases are stated to be for recovery of money based on
friendly loans advanced by DH to different persons. This
includes 11 civil cases and 16 cases filed U/S 138 NI Act 1881.
22.It is pertinent to note that U/S 3 of Punjab Registration of
Money Lenders’ Act, 1938 (which is also applicable to Delhi), a
suit by a money lender for the recovery of a loan or an
application by a money lender for the execution of a decree
relating to a loan is liable to be dismissed unless the money
lender, at the time of presentation of application for execution
or at the time of decision of the said application is registered
under the said Act and also holds a valid license under the said
Act.
23.Decree holder is before this Court seeking execution of money
decree which as per his own affidavit dated 07.04.2026 stated to
have been given as loan for business purpose. As per the
relevant judgment dated 10.12.2024 (which is the genesis of the
present execution passed in CS No. 142/23) the transaction
between the parties was stated to be a friendly loan.
24.As per the said judgment, the transaction is of Rs. 4,00,000/-
with DH giving Rs.2,00,000/- through two cheques and another
Rs. 2,00,000/- through cash on 08.09.2021. The said loan is
stated to be for a period of 10 months and a written agreement
in this regard is stated to have also been executed between the
parties.
-- 8 of 11 --
25.Now, even though decree holder had claimed that the said
amount was a
friendly loan, it is evident from the transaction
that the said loan, in substance was actually a
loan with interest
and not a
friendly loan.
26.This is because, decree holder is evidently giving part amount
in cash and the remaining part through banking channels. This
happens for the transactions in question and to keep proof of the
same, a written agreement is stated to have also been executed
between the parties. This claim of giving of cash amount is
essentially the interest component which the decree holder
sought to cover and protect by a written agreement between the
parties and in fact only the money given through banking
channels is the money which was given by the decree holder to
the JD.
27.I may note that a similar
modus operandi was used by decree
holder in CS No. 304/25 titled as 'Rajesh Gupta Vs. Seema
Jain'. A similar modus is also used by decree holder in Ex. No.
18/25 (qua which CS No. 344/23 was filed). In each of the
above two cases, part cash money is paid and the remaining is
through banking channels coupled with some loan agreement.
28.It means that as a standard operating procedure, decree holder
gives part money through banking channels and part money
through cash money coupled with an agreement to show a
genuine loan transaction. This part cash component is actually a
cover for the interest charged.
29.Under the Punjab Registration Money Lenders’ Act, 1938, the
term ‘loan’ is defined in Section 2 (8) and it means an advance,
whether secured or unsecured, of money or in kind at interest
-- 9 of 11 --
and shall include any transaction which the Court finds to be in
substance a loan.
30.In the present case, the manner in which the transactions are
being set up, the cash component thereof are in substance the
interest payable by JD qua the money given through banking
channels and thus, in substance, decree holder herein has given
loan as a money lender to JD. He has not produced any money
lending license under the said Act in his favour.
31.Even if it is taken that the entire money of Rs.4 lac was given
by decree holder to JD in the manner claimed, still, in my
humble opinion, the transaction between the parties was
actually a loan transaction within the meaning of Section 2 (8)
of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders’ Act, 1938.
32.The fact of the matter remains that he has filed at least 27 cases
against different individuals in Delhi and has not disclosed the
correct number of cases filed. Only after much persuasion, the
above number was disclosed which too cannot be taken as
gospel truth. Filing of such large number of cases against
different individuals clearly show that decree holder is
essentially working as a money lender (defined U/S 2 (9) of the
aforesaid Act) and thus, was required to hold a license under the
said Act before maintaining the original suit or the present
execution.
33.In my humble opinion, if I take a holistic view of the entire
record, the present execution is liable to be dismissed in light of
the bar of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act as the loan given by the
decree holder is a loan within the meaning of the aforesaid Act
and decree holder is a money lender within the meaning of the
-- 10 of 11 --
said Act. Therefore, before decree holder can seek recovery, he
should have a registration under the said Act and the license
under the said Act should be valid on the date of institution of
the present petition.
34.Considering the above, the present execution is liable to fail as
being barred by law. Nothing can be recovered by the decree
holder under the decree in question. In fact, the suit itself was
barred by law and decree holder was not entitled to any decree
in his favour considering the discussion noted above.
35.Accordingly, the present execution is dismissed.
36.Copy of this order be placed on main suit file bearing CS No.
142/23.
37.File be consigned to Record Room.
38.I may note that during the dictation of the present order, decree
holder had appeared and has submitted that he has deposited the
cost of Rs. 1500/- imposed vide last order. The said submission
is taken on record.
39.Let the main suit file bearing CS no. 142/23 be also sent back to
Record Room.
Aashish Gupta
DJ-01/NE/KKD/DELHI
29.05.2026
-- 11 of 11 --