Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAYANK MITTAL
SCJ-CUM-RC, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.1264/2025
CNR No. DLNW03-001896-2025
In the matter of :
Sh. Suresh
S/o Late Sh. Manohar Lal,
R/o H. No. 1895, BLK Y
Mangolpuri, Delhi-110083
......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Brahampal
S/o Late Sh. Phool Singh,
R/o Jhuggi No. 65, Block P-1,
Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086
......Defendant
Date of institution : 25.10.2025
Reserved for Judgment : 01.04.2026
Date of decision : 06.04.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT (EX-PARTE)
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand Only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of
filing of present suit till realization along with cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff as averred in the
plaint are that in November 2022, the defendant had approached
the plaintiff by showing its bonafide need of paying the
CS SCJ No. 1264/2025 Suresh v. Brahampal Page No. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
installments of his vehicle demanded Rs.30,000/- from the
plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff in good faith had given
Rs.30,000/- on 11.11.2022 through UPI in the bank a/c of
defendant i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank vide no. 2414145520. The
defendant assured at the time of taking the above mentioned
amount that he would return the same within a short span. It is
averred that after passing enough period when the plaintiff
demanded the aforesaid amount, the defendant firstly linger on
the plaintiff on one pretext and other thereby sought the time on
different excuses but didn't return any amount. At last when
plaintiff again demanded the amount, then to his utter shock
defendant flatly refused to return the amount. Hence, the present
suit.
3. The defendant was served with the summons of the suit on
08.11.2025. However, the defendant failed to appear despite
service, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
27.03.2026.
4. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who in his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex-PW-1/1 has reiterated and
reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon
the following documents :
1. Screenshot of giving payment via paytm to defendant is Ex.
PW1/A;
2. Aadhar card is Ex. PW1/B (OSR);
3. Certificate under Section 63 BSA is Ex.PW1/C.
CS SCJ No. 1264/2025 Suresh v. Brahampal Page No. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
5. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the material available
on record carefully.
6. Before giving findings on the evidence led by plaintiff and
submissions advanced on behalf of plaintiff, it is important to
note that in the present case, the defendant has never appeared
and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.03.2026. It is
further noted that the Court is mindful of the fact that in cases
where the defendant is ex-parte, the Court needs to be extra
cautious, as it would not have the advantage of defence pointing
out the defect in the case of plaintiff and before passing the
judgment, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff should be
weighed carefully before arriving at the finding as to whether the
plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. The initial burden to
prove the averments of the plaintiff rests entirely upon the
plaintiff who has to discharge the said burden as per law. In civil
litigation, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove its case by
preponderance of probabilities. In Adiveppa V. Bhimappa
(2017) 9 SCC 586, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
observed that:
“It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is
always on the plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings
and adequate evidence (oral and documentary) in support
thereof.”
Thus, the burden to prove the case as per law entirely is
upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
7. PW-1 has proved on oath the allegations against the
defendant and the evidence produced by the plaintiff goes on
CS SCJ No. 1264/2025 Suresh v. Brahampal Page No. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
unchallenged and un-rebutted. Screenshot of giving payment via
paytm to defendant is Ex. PW1/A; Aadhar card is Ex. PW1/B
(OSR); Certificate under Section 63 BSA is Ex.PW1/C.
8. The present suit is filed within the prescribed period of
limitation as per provisions of Limitation Act and the present suit
has been instituted on 25.10.2025, hence the present suit is
within limitation. As defendant has not turned up despite service
and accordingly was proceeded ex-parte, the averments made in
the plaint and the testimony of the plaintiff during PE remained
unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelief the unrebutted
testimony of PW1 and the documents relied upon him. These
documents coupled with testimony of the plaintiff prove the case
of the plaintiff.
Relief
9. In view of the reasons given above and uncontroverted
evidence brought on record, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed
and following reliefs are granted in his favour and against the
defendant :-
i. Decree for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only).
ii. Seeing the prevalent market conditions, pendente lite and
future interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum is also awarded in
favour of the plaintiff from the date of filing of present suit till
CS SCJ No. 1264/2025 Suresh v. Brahampal Page No. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
the realization of the amount.
iii. Cost of the suit.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to
Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
on 06.04.2026
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller,
North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi
CS SCJ No. 1264/2025 Suresh v. Brahampal Page No. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --