Final Order 26

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC-ASCJ-GUARDIAN JUDGE, NORTH-EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNE03-000189-2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
CS No. 109/23
Mr. Rajesh Gupta
S/o Sh. Gauri Shankar Gupta
R/o H. No. T-135-A, Gali No. 9,
Gautam Puri, Garhi Mendu,
North East, Delhi-110053.
........ Plaintiff
vs.
(i) Sh. Rimjhim Aggarwal
D/o Hari Mohan Aggarwal
(ii) Mr. Hari Mohan Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Raghu Nath Aggarwal
Both defendants resident of H. No. T-345, Second Floor,
Gali No. 9, Gautam Puri, New Seelampur, Delhi-110053.
........ Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY FOR A SUM OF Rs. 2,00,000/-
ALONGWITH INTEREST @ 24% PER ANNUM
Date of Institution : 10.03.2023
Date of judgment : 28.11.2025
CS No.: 109/23
	Rajesh Gupta vs. Rimjhim Aggarwal & Anr.
	Page no. 1
of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is filed on behalf of plaintiff for recovery of
Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
PLAINT
2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that on 10.01.2021,
defendant approached plaintiff for friendly loan and plaintiff
considering the old friendship with defendant no. 2, plaintiff gave a
friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- after arranging the same from his
nears and dears through notarized agreement dated 15.01.2021. It is
further stated that plaintiff gave the said amount in cash in presence
of two witnesses on 16.01.2021. It is further stated that witnesses
Tara Chand and Prempal signed the agreement. It is further stated
that as per the agreement, defendants were legally bound to return
the said amount till 16.03.2021, otherwise plaintiff will have right to
sue the legal case against the defendants.
It is further stated that one security cheque bearing no.
000010 of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch Yamuna Vihar from bank
account of defendant no. 1 had been issued in favour of plaintiff but
unfortunately the cheque has been misplaced from plaintiff. It is
further stated that plaintiff informed the defendants to stop the said
cheque and issue a new one but defendant denied to reissue a new
cheque.
It is further stated that after expiry of loan agreement,
plaintiff requested many times to return the said amount but
defendant misbehaved and threatened to kill the plaintiff. It is
further stated that plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 02.02.2023 to
CS No.: 109/23
	Rajesh Gupta vs. Rimjhim Aggarwal & Anr.
	Page no. 2
of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
defendant but defendant neither replied nor made the payment.
Hence, the present suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. The defendants in their WS stated that the suit is wholly
misconceived and false. It is further stated that plaintiff has
concealed the material facts with this court and plaintiff has not
approached the court with clean hands. It is further stated that the
present suit is liable to be dismissed u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is further
stated that defendant no. 2 is engaged in business of selling bakery
items by roaming in locality. It is further stated that in the month of
December, 2020, defendant no. 2 met with plaintiff and expressed
his desire for loan to extend his business, to which, plaintiff assured
that he has good link with some government bank officials, who can
easily provide loan on very low interest. It is further stated that
defendant no. 2 again met with plaintiff and plaintiff told that the
bank officials suggested him to avail loan facility on any female
member of family and the rate of interest on female customer is low.
It is further stated that plaintiff suggested the defendant no. 2 to
provide document of his daughter i.e. defendant no. 1 and told that
he will provide the said loan in favour of his daughter and the rate
of interest would be too low. It is further stated that upon assurance,
defendant no. 2 provided the documents of defendant no. 1 to
plaintiff and at the time of providing the documents, plaintiff took
signature of defendant no. 1 on some blank papers with the pretext
of official work of bank. It is further stated that plaintiff thereafter
started avoiding the defendant no. 2 and he had also taken Rs.
CS No.: 109/23
	Rajesh Gupta vs. Rimjhim Aggarwal & Anr.
	Page no. 3
of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
15,000/- from defendant no. 2 with pretext of bank charges and
bribe for the said officials. It is further stated that in the month of
December, 2021, plaintiff came to house of defendant no. 2 and told
him that bank officials further told for some guarantor and plaintiff
suggested him to stand as guarantor of his daughter and he again
taken signature of defendant no. 2 on some blank papers as well as
on some English written documents. It is further stated that plaintiff
by taking advantage of compulsion, invested his some money in the
business of defendant no. 2 in form of ‘Gutka’ and having no other
option defendant no. 2 sold the said product in the market and give
all the benefits as well as principle amount to plaintiff without any
condition or taking any charges and defendant no. 2 did not get
single penny.
ISSUES
4. The issues in the present matter were framed on 28.08.2023
as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
a decree of money of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lacs only) alongwith
interest, as prayed for?OPP.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is
without any cause of action?
OPDs.
3. Relief?
Thereafter, matter was listed for PE.
CS No.: 109/23
	Rajesh Gupta vs. Rimjhim Aggarwal & Anr.
	Page no. 4
of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
5. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. He relied upon
the following documents in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
PW1/A:
a. Copy of friendship loan agreement with Aadhar
Card of defendant is Ex. PW-1/1(colly)(OSR).
b. Copy of police lost information report is Ex.
PW-1/2.
c. Copy of legal notice dated 21.01.2023 is Ex.
PW-1/3(colly).
d. Original speed post receipt is Ex. PW-1/4.
e. Copy of speed post tracking is Ex. PW-1/5.
f. Copy of certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence
Act is Ex. PW-1/6.
g. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent is Ex.
PW-1/7(OSR).
5.1. Plaintiff has also got examined one more witness Prempal as
PW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/1.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that proceedings qua defendant
no. 2/Hari Mohan Aggarwal was abated vide order dated
12.07.2025.
7. Vide separate statement of plaintiff, PE was closed on
05.12.2024. Further, on 05.12.2024, Ld. counsel for defendants
CS No.: 109/23
	Rajesh Gupta vs. Rimjhim Aggarwal & Anr.
	Page no. 5
of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
submit that he does not wish to lead DE and matter was listed for
final arguments and thereafter final arguments were heard.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of money of
Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs only) alongwith interest,
as prayed for?OPP.
8. The onus to prove issue no. 1 was upon plaintiff. In order to
discharge his onus, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1.
PW-1 proved the loan agreement dated 16.01.2021 as Ex. PW-1/1,
thereby citing two witness thereupon i.e. Tara Chand and Prempal.
During cross-examination, PW-1 affirmed the suggestion that he
gave the loan agreement to sign to Hari Om Aggarwal and
Rimjhim Aggarwal. PW-1 further stated that defendant approached
for loan in the month of July, 2022 and agreement was prepared in
January, 2021. This fact is very contrary if the contents of Ex.
PW-1/1 read. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he has
disbursed the loan amount in cash in denomination of Rs. 500/- and
there were four bundles of notes, whereas PW-2 in his cross-
examination state that the loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was given
by plaintiff to Rimjhim Aggarwal, out of which, Rs. 1,00,000/- was
given in cash and Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of cheque. Both the
witness deposed contradictory regarding the mode of advancing of
loan to defendant. PW-1 also failed to tell that from whom he has
arranged the funds. During further cross-examination, PW-1 stated
that witness did not accompanied him at the time of executing the
loan agreement. He also stated that witness of loan agreement were
CS No.: 109/23
	Rajesh Gupta vs. Rimjhim Aggarwal & Anr.
	Page no. 6
of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
not present at the time of executing loan agreement, whereas the
content of Ex. PW-1/1 clarifies that both the parties appended the
signature in front of witness. The deposition of PW-1 is contrary to
facts averred as by way of deposition during cross-examination no
witness was present at the time of execution of loan agreement Ex.
PW-1/1 which is contrary to contents of Ex. PW-1/1. PW-1 in his
cross-examination denied the suggestion that no loan was advanced
to defendant in presence of witness that is to say the loan was
advanced in presence of witness and entire amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- was cash, whereas PW-2 has stated in his cross-
examination that Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in cash and Rs. 1,00,000/-
through cheque as a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to defendant Rimjhim
Aggarwal.
The agreement Ex. PW-1/1 clarifies that the signature of
plaintiff and defendant were appended in Agreement Ex. PW-1/1 in
presence of witness Tara Chand and Prempal, whereas PW-2 stated
that he never met or seen Rimjhim Aggarwal.
PW-2 stated that he is witness to the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-
given to defendant Rimjhim Aggarwal, whereas in the same cross-
examination dated 05.12.2024, PW-2 stated that the plaintiff never
gave money to Rimjhim Aggarwal in his presence. Both the PWs
made self contradictory statement regarding the signature of
witness on agreement Ex. PW-1/1, the presence of witness at the
time of advancing of loan and also the mode of payment of loan i.e.
whether it was cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- or the cash of Rs. 1,00,000/-
and Rs. 1,00,000/- by cheque. The plaintiff failed to prove the
execution of loan agreement without any doubt. The plaintiff also
CS No.: 109/23
	Rajesh Gupta vs. Rimjhim Aggarwal & Anr.
	Page no. 7
of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
failed to prove the mode of advancing of loan to defendant.
Plaintiff also failed to prove the presence of witness at the time of
advancing of loan. On the golden scale of preponderance of
probability, the plaintiff failed to discharge his onus to prove issue
no. 1. Accordingly, issue no. 1 decided against the plaintiff.
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of
action? OPDs.
9. The onus to prove issue no. 2 was upon defendants. The
defendants not led any evidence, so issue no. 2 is decided against
the defendants.
3. Relief?
10. In view of the findings arrived at while deciding the issue no.
1, the suit of plaintiff is dismissed.
File be consigned to the Record Room. Decree sheet be
prepared.
Announced in the Open Court
on 28.11.2025
Ajay Kumar Malik
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No.: 109/23
	Rajesh Gupta vs. Rimjhim Aggarwal & Anr.
	Page no. 8
of 8
-- 8 of 8 --