Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-01,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of
CS No. 70/26
CNR No.DLNE010005842026
Geeta Devi
W/o Late Dilip Singh
R/o H.No. 83-A, DDA Flats,
Shastri Park, North-East Delhi-110053 ….. Plaintiff
versus
Naresh
S/o Sh. Balbir
R/O H.No. 227, Dobheta 145,
Sonipat, Haryana-131101 ….. Defendant
Date of institution : 18.02.2026
Reserved on : 02.09.2026
Date of Decision : 02.09.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has sued the defendant seeking recovery of Rs.5,00,000/-
along with
pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a.
2. The said recovery is premised on one cheque bearing No. 000031 of
Rs. 5 lac dated 15.02.2025 drawn on HDFC Bank, Panipat,
Haryana.
CS No. 70/26 Geeta Devi Vs. Naresh 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
3. It is the case of plaintiff that she gave a friendly loan of Rs. 5 lac to
defendant in cash on 15.11.2024 in the presence of one Vinod
Kumar and at that time, the above cheque was given to her. The said
cheque returned unpaid on presentation and hence she has sued the
defendant for the cheque amount.
4. It is pertinent to note that initially the present suit was filed U/O
XXXVII CPC. But, it was eventually treated as an ordinary suit.
5. As per order dated 20.04.2026, defendant had entered appearance
through a Counsel. But, he never filed his written statement and was
eventually proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.07.2026.
6. Plaintiff led her evidence, detailed below:-
S. No. Particulars of
witness
Nature of witness
1. PW-1/Geeta Plaintiff herself. She reiterated her case by way of her
affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A.
She also relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of aadhar card of plaintiff – Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Cheque in question – Ex.PW1/2
3. Cheque return memo – Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4.
4. Legal notice – Ex. PW1/4A alongwith postal receipt
Ex.PW1/5.
5. Speed post tracking report – Ex. PW1/6.
2. PW-2/Vinod Kumar
Mangal.
He is stated to be the witness to the transaction dated
15.11.2024 and handing over of the cheque Ex.PW1/2. He
placed on record his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW2/A.
7. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
CS No. 70/26 Geeta Devi Vs. Naresh 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
8. Plaintiff has claimed that she gave a cash loan of Rs. 5 lac to
defendant on 05.11.2024. She has not placed on record any
document to show that she had the financial capacity to arrange
such cash amount. In fact, during her evidence, a Court question
was put in this regard and she claimed that:
“I am a housemaid and I earn about Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.
20,000/- per month. I had saved Rs. 5 lac in cash which
were given to defendant. I have my own house. I have a
monthly expense of about Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per
month. Volt. I also have two sons. Further Volt. I want my
money and nothing more.”
9. A bare perusal of the above shows that plaintiff is a housemaid by
profession and only earns an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs.
20,000/- per month. She also has a monthly expense of Rs.
10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. This shall mean that she, at
best, saves an amount of Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month. It is
highly unlikely that a person of such meager means could hold a
cash amount of Rs. 5 lac with her to give as a friendly loan to
defendant. In other words, plaintiff does not have the financial
capacity to extend a large cash sum of Rs. 5 lac to defendant.
10. The case can be looked from another angle. As per plaintiff’s
case, when she purportedly gave Rs. 5 lac in cash to defendant, at
the same time, the cheque in question Ex. PW1/2 is stated to have
been handed over by defendant to plaintiff. But, a bare perusal of
the same shows that the said cheque is written in two different
hands and two different pens. While, the name of the
CS No. 70/26 Geeta Devi Vs. Naresh 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
payee/plaintiff and the date appears to be written in one hand and
one pen; the amount in words, the amount in figure and the
signature on the cheque appear to have been made in other
handwriting using a different pen.
11. If the cheque in question was given to plaintiff on 15.11.2024
itself by defendant, why would it be written in different hands
and using different pens. This makes the transaction being set up
by the plaintiff suspicious.
12. I may further note that the cheque in question had initially
bounced on 25.02.2025 and as per the return memo Ex. PW1/3
placed on record by the plaintiff, the reason of return of the said
cheque was “drawer’s signatures differ”. This raises a possibility
that possibly the cheque was never signed by the defendant at all.
13. Be that as it may, in my humble opinion, plaintiff has not been
able to prove on record the fact that she has the necessary
financial capacity to pay a large cash sum of Rs. 5 lac to
defendant and even the cheque produced by her is suspicious.
14. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that considering the unrebutted
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, plaintiff should be taken to have
discharged her onus to prove that the money was given by her to
defendant and in discharge of the loan, defendant gave his cheque
to plaintiff. Only because defendant has remained ex-parte in the
matter or has not come forward to cross-examine the plaintiff’s
witnesses cannot mean that the Court is bound to rely upon the
CS No. 70/26 Geeta Devi Vs. Naresh 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses without weighing the
evidence. In my humble opinion, if I consider the entire evidence
on record, plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of prove qua
payment of Rs. 5 lac to defendant as a loan. As already stated, she
does not appear to have the requisite financial capacity to do so.
Even the cheque produced by her is a suspicious document.
15. So considered, in my humble opinion, plaintiff is not entitled to
recover any money from the defendant either on the basis of her
oral claim of a friendly loan or on the basis of the cheque Ex.
PW1/2.
16. Accordingly, the suit fails. It is dismissed.
17. Let a decree sheet be prepared.
Announced in the Aashish Gupta
open Court on 02.09.2026 District Judge-01, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No. 70/26 Geeta Devi Vs. Naresh 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --